152: Investigating G-G-G-grandpa Clayton’s Journals, with Kimberli Brown

Please consider supporting this podcast:
Venmo: @Michelle-Stone-24
Patreon.com/132problems

Transcript

[00:00] Michelle: Welcome to 132 Problems revisiting Mormon polygamy. I am so happy to be able to bring you this conversation with my friend and neighbor, Kimberly Brown. I loved this conversation. Kimberly did a lot of work to dig into the William Clayton Journal, so that’s what she’s going to be talking about. And I love the personal connection that she brings to it that you will not want to miss, and also the incredible story of faith and miracles that she shares at the end of this podcast. Truly chills and goose. bumps. This is one that you will want to hear. So thank you so much for joining us. I want to again thank all of those who are able to donate to this podcast. It is more helpful than I can tell you. I hope that there are more people who will feel that like they, that is something that they could do. I really, really do appreciate it. It helps with all of the big projects that we have coming up, some really exciting things that are happening. So thank you so much for joining us as we take this deep dive into the murky waters of Mormon polygamy. I am excited to be here for this conversation with my friend and across the street neighbor Kimberly Brown, and I know that many of you in this, um, in these circles and involved in these conversations know Kimberly online because of all of the great work and research that she does, and I knew that Kim, she’s one of the few who has, um, read through the entire, um, Temple Lot, um, testimony, all of that, which is a huge undertaking, and also she had looked into. The William Clayton Journals quite a bit, so I reached out to Kim and asked if she would be willing to do some work um on the William Clayton Journals just looking for specific things that show that, um, there are problems with it that some of it that she could come and point out many of the problems for us. So Kim, thank you for all of the work that you have done on this topic and for being willing to do this and welcome to the program. I wonder if you would, um, tell us a little bit about yourself.

[02:09] Kimberly Brown: So, um, I have recently in the last few years, I’ve developed a drive and an interest in the history. Um, about 2 years ago, I had a prompting to buy a book, The Teachings of Joseph Smith, and, um, I, when I got it, I sat down and I read it all in 16 hour sitting. And I was surprised as I read this book that there is not a single word from Joseph Smith from his lifetime supporting the doctrine of polygamy. And so I bought also the words of Joseph Smith from Ehat and checked that as well, and found that again there was no, um, there were no teachings supporting polygamy. And so, and since that um time I’ve, um, as I after I read that book, um, I I felt like the Holy Ghost reminded me of times earlier in my life when the Holy Ghost had left, when I had been, when I heard about polygamy, um, about 10 years prior to this study, a close family member had left the church in part because of some of what, what was said about Joseph Smith and young women that, you know, Fannie Alger and she um The contradictions were enough to make her leave the church. So at that time, I decided to go to the Gospel topics essay because I wanted to understand this. But I went to the Gospel topics essay on polygamy 3 different times, and each time I opened up the page, I felt the Holy Ghost leave. Enough, and it was apparent enough that I shut down the page and stopped looking at it, but um Then this last few years revisiting this, um, I’ve dug into the history, reading everything I could from the lifetime of Joseph Smith. I, um, after reading all of the words of Joseph Smith, I listened to 2000 pages of the Complete discourses of Brigham Young. I listened to Wilfred Woodruff’s journals, um, Joseph Smith’s journals, and the more I read, the more I see that. This the doctrine of polygamy did not start with Joseph Smith and the church. Um, I’m actually the 3rd or a 3rd great granddaughter of William Clayton and Margaret Moon, his first plural wife. Um, I appreciated the episodes you did with Jeremy Hope, and there were some things that I noticed in William Clayton’s journal that you didn’t get the chance to talk about that are worth considering.

[04:47] Michelle: Excellent. OK, I’m so excited to get into this and thank you for telling us your the history you’ve had on your journey of um discovering the truth about polygamy. And, um, so we should, we should just tell people I, I mentioned it a little bit. So, um, Kimberly moved. Across the street, how long have you guys lived here? 8 years. OK, 8 years ago. And so it’s so fun. Our kids are like the kids that run across the street to each other’s houses all the time in the summertime, especially. And so Kim is a busy mom like I am. I know that. Um, they moved in and had 3 children, and then while Kimberly was expecting her 4th, I believe is when you adopted your two adopted sons.

[05:27] Kimberly Brown: Yes, so, um, we did foster care for the sweetest, um, 4 year old little boy, um, when I had a 3-year-old daughter and a 1 year old daughter, and we fall, we fell in love with this 4 year old little boy. He was so sweet and he got along with our kids. And, um, we were pretty heartbroken when he was sent back to family. And our 3 year old little girl never stopped talking about her brother Nick. Um, but then 3 years later, we moved here across the street from Michelle, and I was 5 months pregnant and I got a call from DCFS saying Nick was back in the system, he needs a family, and, and we felt very good. We felt a lot of peace about bringing him back. And then 3 months later, I had a baby and A few weeks after that, I got a call from DCFS saying that Nick had a brother in the NICU who was born two days before and needed a family. And so we ended up going from 3 to 6 in 1 year, and yes, we’re in the full busy years with kids, but it’s good stuff.

[06:29] Michelle: That was so great. Yeah, they, it was, it was amazing to watch what, what the Browns did. We, I, I think our whole world was really just impressed with, with you guys doing that. And so anyway, so it’s really funny. Kim and I were talking on the phone. We were like, should we do, should we just have Kim come over or should we do it online? So we decided to go ahead and do it online, although we’re just across the street from each other. So this is really fun. OK, so we can go ahead and start with your presentation.

[06:55] Kimberly Brown: Great. So I started with looking at how do historians evaluate a source for credibility. Google’s answer was historians must consider the author’s expertise, the context in which the source was created, the source’s purpose, the accuracy of the information provided. Whether it aligns with other credible sources and whether the author’s perspective and potential biases are acknowledged and accounted for. Um, if historians want to use William Clayton’s journals to write the history of polygamy in the church, they should be evaluating William Clayton and his journals against these standards. It does not appear that the church historians have taken an evidence-based approach to writing the history, but have instead emphasized all accounts in support of polygamy, regardless of the trustworthiness of the source or when the account was recorded. So with the history, we should wait historical data and evidence from the life of Joseph Smith as much more important than dogma or unsupported historical traditions.

[07:56] Michelle: OK, it is so interesting that for so many of these things William Clayton is the only source we have, so it’s hard to verify. Well, there’s nothing to verify it with because the other sources wouldn’t necessarily tell the same story often, so yeah. Maybe we’ll get to this. I don’t wanna jump ahead, but like, for example, one of the things that I know there’s been a lot of talk about lately, well, that I’ve been talking about for a long time is, um, the relationship between Joseph and Emma, right? I think you’ll get to that so I won’t jump ahead. OK,

[08:24] Kimberly Brown: well, and it’s important, but I also wanted to um remind that we only have 9 to 10% of William Clayton’s journals, but from this 9 to 10%. There is a good amount of evidence that we shouldn’t be taking these or considering them as proof that Joseph Smith taught or practiced polygamy.

[08:42] Michelle: OK, yes, we should need to to verify and support them with additional evidence. OK.

[08:47] Kimberly Brown: Exactly. Also, Brian Hailes recently admitted that the historical consensus is that Clayton’s journals were rewritten.

[08:54] Michelle: Well, OK, so should we pause right here and I’ll go into this topic a little bit because is that all right? Let me add, let me add this to this. Well, let’s see, I don’t know if I have anything. I’ll just take this off for a minute and we can talk about this because on that topic, this is so interesting. I saw that, um, you know, Jeremy had made that video about Brian saying that. The Clayton journals were recopied, so I, I have wanted to talk about this. So I thought, thought that this would be a good conversation, a good opportunity to do it. I was at the, um, William Clayton panel at JWHA where Brian, where, where Brian was as well. We were in that panel together. It was a very full panel, and I’ll just talk about it really quickly because I had wanted to give some information about it. And, um, I took copious notes. So I, um, I have, I, you know, this is all, I, I wish I had like recorded. Yeah, but I don’t know if we were supposed to, but I did take very good notes. So a couple of things that I would love to share about this panel. Um, first of all, let’s see, I’ll go to kind of my critique of the panel first. They had 4 participants in the panel, and, um, what I found to be somewhat discouraging, and, um, I talked to one of the presenters afterward, and he’s a really nice guy, and I never want to, um, you know, I really value his expertise. So, and he said that this wasn’t necessarily intentional, it just kind of happened. And so, um, so giving them the benefit of the doubt that it wasn’t intentional, I still have to say the optics are bad and this seems to keep happening. So what I’m talking about is of the four presenters on the panel, the first presenter, the one I talked to, he has two master’s degrees, one in American history from BYU and uh an MA in library. And information science with an archival concentration from the University of Wisconsin and he has a PhD in history from the University of Utah so very highly credentialed. The second panelist has an MA in US history from the University of Utah and is currently pursuing a PhD at the University of Utah in history. The 4th panelist has an MA in has both a BA and an MA in history from BYU and he’s actually the lead on the Clayton Journalist project. So those were 3 of the panelists and then the third panelist, the other panelist I haven’t mentioned yet, was a woman who was much younger, like my instinct was to call her a girl, you know, she was much younger than the other panelists, and she has a degree in psychology. She has a, a bachelor’s degree in psychology from. BYU and then she’s currently working on another bachelor’s degree in creative writing from the from UVU so she was she’s had a very different, um, caliber of credentials if we want to look at that. And what I found to be discouraging is that it seemed to me from her presentation that her job on the panel was to talk about polygamy and was to basically minimize the importance of polygamy in the William Clayton journals. And so to quote a couple of things, she said. That polygamy is, um, what was her wording? I believe she said it was cringy and um oh I, I put, it was cringy and disheartening. So she admitted the polygamy parts are cringy and disheartening. But then she and and she but then she went on to say what a small portion of the journal they are that they’re only 6% of the journal entries involve William Clayton’s polygamy and only 2% of the entries involve Joseph Smith’s polygamy. So she was saying, so really we should pay attention to everything else and not polygamy. So for me as a member of the audience, it felt again like using a woman to try to talk about polygamy. Do you know what I mean? Like

[12:30] Kimberly Brown: I, I don’t validate the viewpoint because it’s a woman.

[12:34] Michelle: Yes. It’s like we can say what we want to about polygamy because we have this woman doing it. And, and I just, uh, that’s so frustrating to me. It reminded me of that face to face with greatness that I’ve talked about and many other times, you know, they’ll put a woman forward to give the church’s narrative on polygamy. And it feels so akin. To what was happening back in the polygamist polygamist Utah day when they would use the women to, to, you know, to promote the narrative. So that was one thing that I have to just give as a critique of that panel. I, I, uh, you know, it’s just is like, OK, have a, have women on the panel, absolutely. But have them there to talk about their expertise on things. One of the things that this, um, young woman did in her presentation was read. Entries from her journal talking about how studying the Clayton journals has strengthened her testimony and so it was a very different kind of presentation than the the credentialed men’s presentations do do you know what I mean? And it and it was frustrating to me as a woman to see this still happening so that’s one critique that I want to give. But then some of the other things I wanna talk about about this panel because um uh the other people that are talking about it are getting the information secondhand through Brian Hills so I wanna share some of the things if that’s all right that um they said so um a coup there were some admissions that I think were actually a bigger deal I’m trying to get to my notes. So the first presenter, he talked about, um, he introduced the different journals and talked about them. I’m just gonna share a couple of the things. He said that book one has daily entries with changing pens. We know that. And then he did acknowledge that book 2 was copied months at a time and is a clean copy. Now, book 2 is this Navvou period. It is so important to all of us, right? So we can see a difference between Clayton’s journals. This was just part of the presentation, not even, um, presented with any, um, controversy or any, you know, and, and to me, I didn’t think it was news because I’ve already had John Hayacek on my program showing this and talking about how it’s what he called a fair copy, a clean copy, right? So, so we already knew this. And then Jeremy Hoop also went into how this was a clean copy. So I didn’t think this was new information. But yes, he did say this. And then he also talked about that there are so many Things that are going to come out that are going to be really important for us to investigate because the time periods that he stops keeping his personal journal or that he stops keeping Joseph Smith’s journal or that, you know, these overlaps, there’s a time period of overlap where he’s keeping two separate journals, so different wordings of the same events happening that is not understood. Um, one of the things he said, oh, let me get to it. Um, oh, he said, He created the three Davo era journals journal volumes is not straightforward. So he’s acknowledging that there are methodological questions. There are, you know, why was he doing this? Why was he doing it this way. So there are many things that are, um, that in my, my view, I would say are suspect, are suspicious, right? Give us pause, but they seem to just kind of present them as, yes, this is what we know, this is what we don’t know. And then, um, so a couple of other things I want to say, they did say that um. 95% the final presenter said that 95% of the information on polygamy is already published. Now I thought that was interesting because that means we don’t have everything that’s been published about polygamy and I will say at the end of the presentation as soon as they opened it for Q&A, Brian Hailes just shot up his hand and stood up and, you know, like the way he describes it, he, they called on him and he said. So you’re saying that that there’s nothing else about polygamy. Everything about polygamy has already been published. They very clearly said 95% of what was what was of the polygamy content had been published. And so he, but he turned it in his mind into everything and then, um, when, when they answered it they didn’t push back that much. They just said, yeah, there’s most of it is out there’s not going to be very much more so. Sentences or phrases here and there, but I’m really curious to see what the other 5% is. Maybe it’s not very important, but I do think much of what is important are the kinds of things we’re talking about here that show us just anachronisms or dating problems or you, you know, like as we get into this Navu era journal, there are going to be many questions to ask. So and then one of the things that I did think was interesting, so I will say um. This, this panel, um, it was, it was the most full session at the entire conference. JWHJ for anyone who doesn’t know, is the John Whitmer Historical Association, and they have their conference that I was supposed to present at, but because of some unfortunate behind the scenes finagling, um, I was removed from the program, which, which was really difficult and upsetting, but I went ahead and went anyway and I’m glad that I did but. This William Clayton panel was difficult so there were a couple of things that happened, but I will say this was like it was very um noticeable that I was there, right? I was there kind of on my own. I, I found a friend at the conference that I was able to sit by, but, um, but I, I felt very singled out at the end of the conference. One of the Joseph Smith papers historians who I had actually had a reasonably good conversation with the night before, he raised his hands during the Q&A and he asked the question. Are the William Clayton journals real? which seemed like a silly question. Are they real? What does that mean? Are they pretended, do you know what I mean? But and then he kind of said we have these polygamy deniers saying they’re not real. Can you just tell us if they’re real? So I thought that was quite rude and dismissive when it was very well known that I was there in the audience, you know, and so at that point the first presenter answered the question and um and again I just, he just said. Yes, they are real. They are Navu era documents. And then he just kind of pounded his that he said, Joseph Smith was a polygamist. This is settled. This is not a worthwhile conversation to have. Like, I can’t remember his exact wording because at that point I was in shock and I turned bright red, like, like, not too many people turned their heads to look at me, but some did, and most there, it was definitely. Extremely uncomfortable. I, I, you know, I felt incredibly singled out in this room of hundreds of people. And, um, and so that I felt to be unfortunate. But I, I just thought, you know what, answer that question. Just don’t say, are they real? Say, what can you tell us about people. Who hold these with suspicion or who think that, you know what I mean, ask a question that way and then say, well, it looks to us like they are contemporary documents and, you know, and these are the reasons don’t, don’t answer it that way when when I’m in the, I felt so unprofessional to me and felt very unfortunate. But um he did in that answer go ahead and he said Joseph Smith was a politicalist and he said yes there are problems with the William Clayton Journals they have problems. So to me that was the bigger acknowledgement that he acknowledged there are problems with them, but it seemed to be kind of like, but we don’t want to talk about them we don’t want to deal with them we don’t want to acknowledge or admit them because we’re tied to our narrative, you you know, so that is something that I really have. Come to respect these historians. I’ve developed relationships with some of them, at least where we can, um, share resources or I can ask them questions or I’m hoping at some point they’ll be willing to ask me questions, you know, so I don’t want to throw them under the bus, but I do want to call that out of how strangely that was handled and and this this like assertion we know everything about them we know that they’re real they do have problems but we don’t want to have to. Deal with any of the implications of those problems so that was what I found fascinating at the panel the, the, um, admission that they were copied. I, I mean maybe that was new to Brian Hales. You know, it seems to have been because he had to admit it, but I, it wasn’t new to me. But, but having him so blatantly say, uh, how different, um, volume book one is from book two and, and acknowledge some of these problems and then at the end, even when he’s trying to say there’s no question about Joseph Smith’s polygamy, have him, you know, say that the William Clayton journals, which are the main source of evidence of of Joseph Smith’s polygamy, have him so bluntly say there are problems with them. I, I thought that that was really interesting. So I hope that gives people some insight into that panel and what it is that Brian Hailes is talking about. It looked like you had something to say.

[20:46] Kimberly Brown: Yes, well, I think it’s frustrating that they are trying to shut down thought and inquiry on this. Like it is anti-scientific to stop, um, looking for information, to stop looking for data. If the truth is that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, then the more information we get from his journals will prove that to us, right? So. The Church would have, as they were proving, they were trying to prove in the 1800s that Joseph Smith was a polygamist in the Temple Lot trial. They would have not, they didn’t include Clayton’s journals in the Temple Lot trial, but in the 1800s they would have, and now they would release all of the entries that support polygamy because it supports the story they want told. But instead they are seem to be shutting down inquiry. Um, in the beginning of our discussion, I didn’t mention that. I’ve also visited the library in Provo and archives in Salt Lake, and I did ask them as a direct descendant of William Clayton, if I could see his private mission journals and his private Navo journal, and they said no. They said that because the church historians are working on them, they are closed to research. I mentioned how in 2017, the church mentioned they would be released. And they said that, well, their original publisher fell through, and now they have a new publisher, and we’re a few years away from being them being published, which makes you wonder a little bit because these journals are completely written. They, they have been finished. It shouldn’t take long to publish a completed journal.

[22:22] Michelle: Right. When was that? When was that that you had that conversation?

[22:25] Kimberly Brown: Oh, it was like 2 weeks ago.

[22:27] Michelle: Oh, OK, OK, that’s good to know because that’s one of the things I should have included from this, um, this conference. They did say at this conference, and this was just this summer, they said that it’s still 1.5 to 2 years out before they’re published. And then in one of the conversations I had afterwards, they did say, we don’t have a publisher, and that’s the sun and I was like, really? That’s the reason? And, and so one of the questions that I had had wanted to ask if I had, um. You know, been, been up to asking a question was, um, it, it’s they have on the Joseph Smith paper so much interim content where they will just put the content up without having to give without having to have a completed narrative about it. And then we have the entire church history library and the BYU archives where the, the documents are just there readily available without a whole narrative being. Written about them and that has been my question is why can’t they just let us see the documents while like like why hasn’t that been available for a long time and then why isn’t it available now while they’re working on them? And I do know the Council of 50 Records was a similar story. They said that they would release the Council of 50 Records and it took a very, very long time to um. To release them because they were doing all of the work on them so I guess this is similar to that. I just do still I think many of us find it frustrating that they hold on to them so long to to do this. I mean, I mean I it’s, it’s like what is their goal? What are they trying to accomplish? Are they trying to gain more um more I. um, respect for themselves as the church historians or are they like it’s hard to see what the goal is that they want to accomplish unless it’s to set the narrative. It just, I, I, I, I acknowledge that I don’t have the understanding of why they’re doing this and I’m sure they have their reasons, but it sure doesn’t help calm suspicion, right, when they do it this way.

[24:20] Kimberly Brown: Now there it is unlikely that the journals that we that are remaining would add to Joseph Smith’s story of polygamy, right? If anything, they um cast doubt on the current story that’s being told, or else they would have released them already.

[24:36] Michelle: Uh, it’s, well, yeah, I’m, I’m curious. I, I don’t wanna, I don’t know if I can say that for sure. That is, that is how it looks. And so that’s what I want them to understand is maybe they have other reasons, but it sure isn’t helping calm concerns of trustworthiness and of you, you know, it’s, it’s like an interesting thing to be holding on. To for so long, whatever their reasons are, I, I, I just wish that they would let us see them but I guess that’s not how they’re doing it. So anyway, yeah, it is interesting and since we already have 95% of the polygamy information out there’s not going to be that much more. I think another problem with the journals is. That they haven’t in my mind that that hasn’t been fully acknowledged yet is the version of polygamy that William Clayton includes in his journals that the young female historian described as disheartening, cringy, and disheartening is not the version of polygamy that they want to be told, right? It’s not the acknowledgement that’s included in even the Gospel Topics essays now. Like it doesn’t. You know, and I’m sure we’re going to get into quite a bit of that. So I think they have several reasons to wish that they just didn’t exist, you know, and, and to wish that they hadn’t been released in the 80s like they were unofficially. But so anyway, so we’ll continue on. I just wanted to update people with what that panel was, what it is Brian Hills is talking about and what the um historians actually working on this project said about them. All right. I’ll have this back on. They did say, I will say one last thing, they did say they’re Navvo era documents, and I just want to clarify that’s not something I’m arguing. I don’t, I don’t think they weren’t. I think that William Clayton very well could have copied these in Navu. The question I have isn’t when they were created. The question I have is, were they motivated accounts to try to prove some narrative or were they telling the literal truth of the events that happened in Navvo right? I think that’s the question we have. Would you agree with that?

[26:29] Kimberly Brown: Yes, and you know what does the evidence say of motivations,

[26:33] Michelle: right? OK, continue on. thanks for letting me go into that sidetrack.

[26:37] Kimberly Brown: Yes. So in the scriptures, we have the law of witnesses that I thought would be good to talk about. So we talked about the historical source analysis, um, and for the law of witnesses in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 19, it says, one witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity or for any sin, and any sin that he sinneth. At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established. In 1 Corinthians, In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word of God be established. And then in the Book of Mormon and in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses shall these things be established, and the testimony of 3, and in this work in the which shall be shown forth the power of God and His word, of which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost bear record, and all this shall stand as a testimony against the world at the last day. And then in the doctrine and covenants, and now behold, I give unto you and also my servant Joseph the keys of this gift which shall bring to light this ministry. And in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word of God be established. So as we look at William Clayton’s journal and consider the law of witnesses and his historical source analysis, um, we can decide whether these journals should be considered proof of polygamy. So, um, I did read Clayton’s Manchester Journals or diaries, and there are multiple interesting things, but I thought we’d start this presentation for, um, when Clayton first mentions polygamy and Avo. On March 7th, um, Clayton writes that this Tuesday, the 7th, and the a.m. at the office, afterwards went to President Joseph’s and commenced settlement with those who have claims on the city lots. Elder Brigham Young called me to one side, and he said he wants to give me some instruction on the priesthood, the first opportunity. He said if the prophet had told him, he said the prophet had told him to do so and to give me a favor of which I have long desired. The Joseph Smith paper’s historians note in this entry that the priesthood clearly meant polygamy.

[28:44] Michelle: Yes. OK.

[28:46] Kimberly Brown: Mhm. And then just two days later, on March 9th, Clayton writes, at President Joseph’s office, walked out in the p.m. he told me it was lawful for me to send for Sarah and said he would furnish me money. This is an entry we can prove historically is false. We know this because James Allen, who wrote Clayton’s biography, found the letter Clayton sent Sarah Crooks. Allan reports the letter sending for Sarah arrived in England on February 12, 1843, 3.5 weeks before this journal reports he had ever heard of polygamy from Joseph Smith. Clayton could not have first learned about polygamy and received the money to send for her because he had already sent for her. In 1840, it would have taken 25 days approximately for mail to get from Navvo to Manchester, England, which would place the mailing of the letter around January 19th, 1843.

[29:41] Michelle: Wow, that’s a big deal. This is the kinds of things that the people need to deal with. I’m so glad you’re bringing this up. Thank you. Mhm.

[29:49] Kimberly Brown: So if this was a contemporaneous entry for the date and what was said, if it was contemporaneous, what was said should be highly trustworthy, but this entry is not true for the date or for the um entry tied to it. Joseph could not have given Clayton money for the woman he’d already sent for. Um, Sarah actually arrived in Navu on May 31st, just in time to have received the letter on February 12th.

[30:16] Michelle: OK, that’s amazing. So do you have any theory about this? Like, because I guess if Clayton had sent the letter, maybe he’d, do we, have you gotten dug in to figure out why Clayton felt like he needed to date it this day? Was he just trying to remember, or do you see some reason that it would have been important?

[30:36] Kimberly Brown: Yes. So no other record backs this entry up. Clayton probably could have realized that if this entry was not here, um, there’s no tying Joseph Smith to um teaching Clayton polygamy before he married his wife. OK, so before it was sealed to, um, actually my 3rd great grandmother, Margaret Moon.

[31:00] Michelle: So this is such a big deal this is exactly what we are talking about is weighing Clayton’s journal against the actual evidence, the letter that is the actual evidence, right? Clayton’s journal is his narrative about this and this is another way we can show that when they say. Has problems. I think we need to take that a little more seriously. OK, that’s, that’s great work. Thank you for finding that.

[31:23] Kimberly Brown: Absolutely. All right. All right. So next, the next entry is when he is sealed to Margaret Moon on April 27th, Clayton reports Brigham Young Jose drove him to Hebrew C. Kimball’s house. This entry has no no mention is made of Joseph Smith being present. Then skipping forward to May 1st is the first reference that is used to tie Joseph Smith to practicing polygamy. Clayton writes, I had the honor to seal one woman, Lucy Walker, to Joseph Smith under his direction. Clayton’s journal does not say Mary, it says he sealed Lucy Walker to Joseph Smith. However, Clayton would later repeatedly say he married Joseph Smith to Lucy Walker, despite his journal only using the word sealed. Um, Fair Latter-day Saints.org has an article that explains how sealing practices changed in the church in the 1800s. Before 1894, church practice was that everyone needed to be sealed to a Melchizedek priesthood holder. If a man or woman did not have a father living to be sealed to, they could be sealed to a non-relative Melchizedek priesthood holder. Lucy Walker’s mother had died a few months before she went to stay at the Mansion House in 1843. Her father was on a mission, so no contemporaneous record of marriage sealing or journal entry supporting a relationship with Joseph Smith exists from Lucy Walker. She first made her claim she was married to Joseph Smith 44 years later after the martyrdom.

[32:51] Michelle: And was it just in an affidavit? Is that how where we get her story?

[32:56] Kimberly Brown: It was an account that she wrote in 1888.

[32:59] Michelle: OK, OK, so she did write an account. OK, I need to have the affidavits memorized so I can remember who filled one out and who didn’t, or who, who’s who’s in who had one filled out on their behalf because the women did not write these affidavits for the most part. Yes,

[33:16] Kimberly Brown: it was interesting as I read through the Temple Lot case, there were multiple witnesses who conflated ceiling with marriage, including Lorenzo Snow and Melissa Lot. They Um They, um, Meliss a lot, um, when asked by the lawyer if she was married or she’s sealed, she said, I was married or sealed whatever like it was the.

[33:40] Michelle: Right. Well, that’s what they did with the affidavits. That’s how they set them up. But one thing I want to say with this is, even on the Fair Latter-day Saints, that’s not necessarily accurate with Joseph Smith. My understanding is we don’t really know what Joseph Smith was doing with ceiling, right? It’s, it’s quite, um, it, it wasn’t fully defined, and we don’t have full records of it, is my understanding. So even trying to understand the progression of ceilings, because, um, Brigham Young, Hebrewy. Kimball, the The leaders after Joseph Smith were trying to implement this adoption, but they didn’t know what it was that Joseph was doing. And so even, even these like these records, I don’t even, I’m not comfortable with saying all these women were sealed to Joseph Smith, but they weren’t married, you know, because we have no idea. There’s no better evidence for sealing than there is for marriage. We just have no idea what any of this was.

[34:30] Kimberly Brown: Yes, but it is true in William Clayton’s journal. He never says he was married to Margaret Moon. He never says refers to her as a wife. But um as far as this ceiling on May 1st, um, Clayton just says he sealed Joseph Smith to Lucy Walker, and we know that um sealing was not the same as marriage in Joseph Smith’s time because Joseph Smith was sealed to multiple men. Brigham Young was even sealed to John D. Lee.

[35:00] Michelle: Yep, exactly. OK.

[35:03] Kimberly Brown: Mhm. So, also on May 1st, 1843 is an entry multiple historians have found questionable. The Kinderhook plates were a 19th century hoax, where some men used acid to make metal plates look old and presented them to Joseph Smith to translate. Um, Joseph had them in his possession for 5 days, but there’s no historical data from Joseph Smith’s lifetime supporting that he began translating them. On May 1st, 1843, Clayton wrote, I have seen six brass plates which were found in Adams County. President J has translated a portion, and they say and says they contain the history of the person with whom they were found, and he was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, and that he received the kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth. So Clayton writes this entry very definitively, like he knows it for a fact. Um, Stephen Kimball, a historian, wrote an article which argues that because we don’t have any historical documents backing up the claim that Joseph Smith ever tried translating the Kinderhook plates, this entry may have been entirely based on speculation or conjecture. Kimball provides the evidence that multiple contradictory accounts were written during these same weeks, indicating rumors were being spread about the plates. Um, partly P. Pratt wrote an account of how the plates were found that was different from Clayton’s account. Brigham Young had a journal entry um showing the plates, but these different journals didn’t, don’t line up. OK. Clayton does not write that Joseph told him he that Joseph told him he translated or that he saw Joseph translating the Kinderhook plates, but he wrote this entry as if he knew it for a fact. Um, Allen, the author of Clayton’s biography, agreed that this entry could have been entirely based on conjecture due to lack of evidence.

[36:58] Michelle: OK, so this could have been the rumors that was going around or what Clayton thought they were. OK.

[37:03] Kimberly Brown: And I wanted to bring this up simply because this entry should make, you know, historians wonder if Clayton could have done that same thing in other areas as we know rumors of polygamy were all around.

[37:16] Michelle: Right, and this is one of the things that I think is good for us to pay attention to too, and I hope that historians will pay attention to is that um you know I’m, I’m wondering if Allan and Kimball find the Kinderhook plate um entry inconvenient because it can be used against Joseph Smith, right? So therefore they’re motivated to find a way to explain it away, whereas they don’t necessarily try to explain away. Other entries or entries about polygamy, and that’s one of the things we need to be careful of is this bias that just shows up for all of us everywhere and that’s why we need the different perspectives coming together to discuss these things.

[37:50] Kimberly Brown: Yeah, exactly. We actually found that Don Bradley wrote an article on the Kinderhook plates, and he makes a counterclaim to Allan and Kimball. He says that because Joseph Smith was interested in history, And languages and because this entry was added into the history of the church in 1909, we should consider it credible. He uses appeal to authority because it was already in the church history, and he uses the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Bradley’s article brought no new evidence to support um the Kinderhook plates being translated by Joseph

[38:26] Michelle: Smith. Yeah, they’re just assumptions and I guess and and different ways to look at it. So that means that us bringing a new way to look at it is every bit as valid, right? We can, we can do that just as much as they can and often we are bringing new evidence to it.

[38:39] Kimberly Brown: So exactly we can take in, um, the, um, different opinions of multiple historians and bring it together. All right. On May 23rd, Clayton writes, he conversed with Hebrewy Kimble concerning the plot that’s being laid to entrap the brethren of the secret priesthood by by Bro H and others. President J and Lady wrote to his farm. He also writes, President states to me he had a little trouble with sister Emma and was asking, he was asking Eliza Partridge concerning Jackson’s conduct during President’s absence, and Emma came upstairs. He shut the door, not knowing who it was and held it. She came to the door and called Eliza 4 times and tried to force open the door. President opened it and told her the cause, etc. She seemed much irritated. So this is where Clayton begins to report a different Emma than reported by any other contemporaneous source.

[39:36] Michelle: And can we point out here, there is 0% chance that Clayton was an eyewitness to this, right? He speaks it matter of factly as if he was there in the home watching it happen. And so we have to assume, just like he spoke matter of factly about the Kinderh plates, which there’s not another account to back up his version of that. And so we have to ask these questions. How is he getting this information, because we know it’s not things he’s seeing for himself. And so are we claiming that Joseph Smith is telling him these things and then he’s writing them down? I, I can’t find anyone else that Joseph Smith is just like bad mouthing Emma all the time and telling about his domestic polygamous domestic problems like he is with Clayton. And even then that would be a secondhand, right? That’s not the firsthand account of someone involved in this. And again we have no evidence that I have seen to back these things up. We often have evidence to to to show that they’re not the case.

[40:36] Kimberly Brown: Yes, and that is what I found. I searched everything that I could and found nothing that supported marital strife between Emma and Joseph or Emma behaving unkindly to any other women.

[40:47] Michelle: Yes, that’s, that’s my experience as well. And I find that the people who write on these things and who make this narrative usually fail to include other documents that are really important. Like just for one example, the letters between Emma Smith and Joseph Smith. And maybe those haven’t been as accessible until the Joseph Smith papers because many of them were in the, in the community of Christ archives. I believe, but they, they were kept in the possession of Emma Smith. Most of them that we have because Joseph’s letters from Emma weren’t preserved, while many of his other letters, you know, like the things that James Whitehead claimed that he would have preserved Joseph Smith’s letter book that he said he turned into the 12 for some reason we don’t have those sources. James Whitehead said that he was in charge of those things, turned them into the 12, and they didn’t know what. to them from there and it is fascinating to me that all of the things James Whitehead said he was in charge of which are records we should expect to find we don’t seem to have.

[41:41] Kimberly Brown: So the Joseph Smith Papers historians um have written that Willard Richards was exclusively responsible for Joseph Smith’s journals. And so as I read through Clayton’s journals, I. I wonder if these are just him taking a personal interest in watching Joseph to see what Joseph might be doing. Now, William Clayton had his first plural wife sealed to him, and so he probably would have been very interested to see if Joseph Smith was doing this. Well, but I want to bring you.

[42:10] Michelle: Oh, go ahead. You go ahead.

[42:12] Kimberly Brown: Yes, I wanted to bring up, how busy do you think the Mansion House was in 1843 and 1844? Oh,

[42:18] Michelle: you tell me. I’m very excited to hear. My assumption is it would have been very busy.

[42:22] Kimberly Brown: Very, very busy. We had, you know, um, Emily and Eliza Partridge, um, said that they were living there. Um, people were constantly coming in and through the mansion house, staying as, as it was a, um, in a hotel. It is unlikely that with all these people coming through and staying for months in the mansion house, like Lucy Walker stayed there, Emily and and Eliza Partridge did as well. We would, we should have more witnesses to um disagreements between Joseph and Emma if if they were occurring.

[42:55] Michelle: Mhm, I think that’s true. While you, um, you just mentioned Willard Richards, would that be a good time for me to show a similar problem in Willard Richard’s journal? Yeah absolutely go ahead or should I do that a little bit later? So this is interesting and I, I’m sorry to take a sidetrack. I wondered what point to put this in, um, Kimberly and Kim and I had talked about these things before, but this is an interesting thing to me that kind of shows the same thing that you are showing in, um, Clayton’s journal, just these dates that don’t match up. So this is Saturday. May 20th, 1843, and, and the reason this caught my attention is because he says in the office, her brother Phelps read a definition of the word Mormon, more more good corrected and sent to press. And so I thought that was fascinating because of course it reminded me of President Hinckley’s October 1990 conference talk, Mormon means more good, which was a response to the previous conference, right? And one thing that was interesting is I did not remember President Hinckley saying this about Joseph Smith. I didn’t remember him referencing this in this in the talk, so I went back and read the talk, and he doesn’t reference it in the talk in the in the um video, you know, when he gave the talk, he didn’t reference Joseph Smith saying this, but it did, they did add it. This is the um text of the talk, and they added the Joseph Smith um. Um, that this was printed in the times and seasons, and I hadn’t seen that source yet. And so I went ahead and found the times and seasons where this was printed. And if you look at the date, May 15, 1843, and this gives a long discussion in this about the, um, about the name of the church, right? And it’s, it’s actually, um, like, really not good. I think that this is the reason that President Hinckley didn’t refer to it because it’s a very tortured explanation. I’ll I’ll link this in the show notes for anyone who wants to read it of how they are claiming Mormon means more good and it’s just, it’s not very well done. So President Hinckley instead said Mormon should mean, should mean more good and goes on to it. But this is what’s interesting. This was published in the newspaper May 15th, 1843, and if you look again at the journal entry, it’s May 20th. Mhm. Right? So it says that Brother Phelps read, he, he, Brother Phelps came up with a definition of why Mormon meant more good, and then they corrected it and sent it to press on May 20th, and yet we can look at the dates and see it was published on May. 15th so it couldn’t have been brought and sent to press on May 20th, and these are the kinds of things that that we are looking at going there is funny business here. I don’t know exactly how to explain any of this other than Willard Richard’s version of Joseph Smith’s journal. Also has problems that I think need to be acknowledged and that’s just one of the one of the recent ones that I stumbled upon.

[45:45] Kimberly Brown: Yes, and that’s something that I have noticed that you’ll see a few scattered references to polygamy and Clayton’s journal. But then Willard Richard’s journal has one or two references, and Brigham Young’s has one or two references, and these references don’t line up together. They’re not on the same days. They’re just scattered,

[46:03] Michelle: right? And then when they do, like for example, July 12, 1843, Revelation Day, right? And um Willard Richard’s Joseph Smith Journal, I don’t even know what we should call it. I call it Joseph Smith. But it’s Willard Richard’s account of Joseph’s journal, right? And so that says that um Joseph received a revelation in the presence of of um William Clayton and Hirum doesn’t give us any more information than William Clayton gives us this whole story of, you know, Hirum wanting to convince Emma, but it gets much more elaborated in the much later affidavit. But those are used to um support one another, right? But and yet we are saying these both both of these records have problems

[46:46] Kimberly Brown: and we should be able to look critically at it to see what is most reliable. Mhm. All right, next slide on May 26th, Clayton’s journal states Hirum received the doctrine of the priesthood. And for this one, Willard Richard Richard’s version of Joseph Smith’s journal states they did teach on the priesthood and the Everlasting covenant on this day. Polygamy asserters might think this supports Hiram Smith being taught about polygamy. However, Joseph Smith never once in his lifetime was recorded to refer to marriage as the new and everlasting covenant, or called polygamy the priesthood. This entry is questionable based on Hiram Smith’s teachings after this. Had he accepted polygamy on this date, we would expect his private and public teachings to reflect it.

[47:32] Michelle: Yes, very much, at least not refute it so directly and strongly and profoundly. Hirum from his own documentation, there was no change of heart from Hirum. And not only is there no evidence that Joseph used the N and Everlasting Covenant to refer to polygamy, actually, we can go. Through and show that that that that actually was not the case that it’s not only a lack of evidence, it is very compelling evidence to the contrary that it’s anachronistic to refer to the new and Everlasting covenant as polygamy in Navu. That was a later development from the polygamists.

[48:07] Kimberly Brown: Yes, and I thought I’d share Hiram Smith’s strong words. He’s on April 9, 1844. I am authorized to tell you from henceforth that any man who comes in to teach such damned fool doctrine to come in to take away his priest priesthood license, none but a fool teaches such such stuff. I despise the man who will disgrace himself and teach such stuff. On May 29th, Clayton states this a.m. President Joseph told me he felt as though I was not treating him exactly right and asked if I had used any familiarity with E. I told him by no means and explained this to his satisfaction. This entry cannot be corroborated with any other source, and would have to be hearsay. But I almost feel like this entry is anachronistic, that later in Utah, um, the idea of a woman being able to um marry a person with higher priesthood keys, um, was allowed. Clayton didn’t have higher priesthood keys, but this idea of wives being able to go to other husbands was more later.

[49:15] Michelle: OK, this is so interesting to me and it does bring up a lot of questions. We’re assuming that E means Emma, I assume, right? And um and so my, my question on this, and I know that some of the pushback that we’ll, we’ll get about this one is why in the world would, would Clayton put this in his own journal? If it doesn’t make him look good, right? And so I just want to acknowledge that I don’t understand what this might might be about or why he would have included it or what he was trying to accomplish. This seems to be a very problematic entry for both narratives. Right, I, I don’t have a good explanation for this one at this time. I would need to think about this one more.

[49:54] Kimberly Brown: Well, his second Davo journal was from right when he or sealed Margaret or was sealed to Margaret, all the way up until September 1844, um. Why would Clayton want to rewrite this journal? It would have to be to reflect better on himself or better on the version of history he wanted told,

[50:16] Michelle: right? I am curious, or this could be a genuine entry. We do have the testimony from Whitehead that Clayton fell out of favor with Joseph Smith. Right, and so, so it could be that there what that Joseph was like, I don’t like your behavior and whatever means, you know, in whatever way. And anyway, so, so this, this is an interesting one that I would like to think about more. I just will acknowledge that at this point I don’t have a good understanding of this entry. Yes, OK.

[50:42] Kimberly Brown: And then jumping forward to the 13th of June, Clayton writes, I’ve had some conversation with Margaret. She promised she would not marry Erin if she can possibly avoid it. And if she ever feels disposed to Mary, she will tell me as soon as she thinks of it. She will seek my counsel, and she says, and she will abide it. This journal shows that Margaret still considers her considers herself available to be married even after whatever ceremony Brigham Young and Hebrewy. Kimball performed.

[51:12] Michelle: OK, that’s interesting. And are you talking about Margaret Moore going forward? I don’t want to spill the beans on anything if that comes up later. Yes,

[51:19] Kimberly Brown: we’re going to talk about, um, all of the different. Connections and things we should, um, OK, discuss

[51:26] Michelle: with this. So in any case, Clayton is trying to hold on to this plural wife. Is Margaret his third plural wife?

[51:34] Kimberly Brown: It’s his um second wife,

[51:36] Michelle: his second wife, OK, because Sarah Pinnoon and then Margaret moon, and then, um, he’s trying to hold on to her and not let her escape from his marriage, and yet she, this is the eternal covenant of marriage, and it can never be dissolved according to Clayton. And yet she wants to marry somebody else and he’s worried that she may. OK,

[51:56] Kimberly Brown: yes, um, and he mentioned Sarah Pecanoon who was the wife of Hebrewy. Kimble, but

[52:02] Michelle: sorry, I brought the wrong name in. OK, um,

[52:04] Kimberly Brown: but, um, whatever covenant Sarah had or what Margaret had made with, um, William Clayton allowed them to engage in sexual activity without Margaret considering considering herself married. So this I this doctrine of Being able to be sexually active with a person who is not your husband did not continue in the church. But as Margaret became pregnant quickly, um, she was one month pregnant at the time of this entry. We know that whatever covenant she made with Clayton. Um, allowed sexual activity.

[52:36] Michelle: OK, OK, so this looks somewhat akin to John Bennett and to the things we read in the England Journals and letters and OK, there’s something going on, some wife swappery of some sort or other.

[52:52] Kimberly Brown: Margaret didn’t believe what Clayton would later claim about their relationship. On June 23rd, Clayton states Joseph said Emma wanted to lay a snare for him. He told me last night of this and said he had felt troubled. He said Emma had treated him coldly and badly since I came, and he knew she was disposed to be revenged on him for some things. He thought if he would indulge himself, she would too. She thought if he would indulge himself she would too. So this entry is not supported by any other account, and because this journal was rewritten, we cannot verify when this was added in. Joseph’s journal from Willard says nothing related to Emma or plural marriage. Joseph was taken 12 miles away to Dixon’s ferry on this day, and then was relieved by habeas corpus.

[53:45] Michelle: OK. So this is interesting. I would like to look and see how this relates to Joseph Jackson as well, because Joseph Jackson is the one where we get the report of William Law of MSA. He’s a sweet little man, and those are the two versions of this awful perspective of Emma. This, this version of Joseph and Emma that Clayton presents. I just do not see it anywhere else. And again, how would Clayton. Have have knowledge of these conversations they were having this conversation in front of William Clayton or Joseph was reporting it to him like, like these are really important questions to ask where is this information coming from? We cannot claim that that Clayton is a firsthand witness.

[54:32] Kimberly Brown: Well, and also, I didn’t include this on this PowerPoint, but 6 days after this is a tearful reunion with Joseph and Emma and where their son comes up and says, you know, Dad, um, are they going to take you away again? Um. And it’s just a very loving, cheerful reunion. It doesn’t. It seems out of place if this was occurring a week before.

[54:56] Michelle: Mhm. Yes, OK.

[54:58] Kimberly Brown: All right. And jumping forward to um Revelation Day. So on July 12, 1843, Clayton writes of of receiving the revelation on marriage. His journal states, Wednesday the 12th, this a.m. I wrote a revelation consisting of 10 pages on the order of the priesthood, showing the designs of Moses, Abraham, David, and Solomon, and having many wives and concubines, etc. After it was wrote, Presidents Joseph and Hyrum presented it and read it to Emma, who said she did not believe a word of it and appeared very rebellious. Joseph told me to deed all the unencumbered lots to E and the children. He appears much troubled about E. So this whole entry is listed in the journal E July 12th. But worth noting is this entry, the story is different in this entry from his 1874 affidavit. Um, Clayton in 1874 wrote that it was just Hirum who went to go and convince Emma, but this entry says it was Joseph and and Hirum, and also this entry includes um deeding lots to Emma on the 12th, which is not the story they would tell later.

[56:09] Michelle: OK, yes, and maybe we’ll get into that a little bit more and I do want to again mention the um paper that Cheryl and Cheryl Bruno and I wrote um it it by the time this airs it may be out of peer review and may be available to read so as soon as it is, I will link it in the description box below that is focused primarily on William Clayton’s affidavit that we’re referencing here. So that’s an important piece to add to this, this discussion that I think people need to be aware of,

[56:38] Kimberly Brown: yes. So worth noting also with this entry is William Clayton is the only witness we have um supporting the DNC 132 is the same revelation as the one given by Joseph Smith on July 12th.

[56:53] Michelle: OK, yes,

[56:55] Kimberly Brown: because Rose Smith and Hiram Smith would deny in the following year that their revelation on marriage referred to polygamy polygamy at all for their day. They also both denied that there had been a command to live polygamy. So by our spiritual or scriptural law of witnesses, we need at least two witnesses for a word of God to be established, and Joseph and Hiram both um testified against the contents in DNC 132.

[57:22] Michelle: We actually have a third witness as well because the other participant in this journal entry is Emma Smith. And Emma very clearly stated that the first time she ever saw Section 132, the polygamy revelation, was in um Orson Pratt’s The Seer when it was published in that in 1853 and 1854. And so we have all three participants in that Joseph, Emma, and Hiram saying this is not what the revelation was about. I didn’t see anything about this versus William Clayton.

[57:50] Kimberly Brown: Yes, and then also Joseph Smith’s and Hiram Smith’s teachings after this date did not support the polygamy or spiritual wifery as, as you’d expect if DNC 132 is the same as the revelation on marriage.

[58:05] Michelle: Yes, and can I go ahead and add this, um, this next portion just really quickly? People who have watched my deeds episodes will hopefully remember this slide, the July 12th, July 13th, and July 15th, the portions that we have of William Clayton’s journal entry. And how this does not work with the evidence. If anyone, maybe I, I maybe I’ll go over it really quickly here if that’s OK, but I would recommend people like, OK, and, and then people go back and um watch um the two parts I did the, the part one and part two on Joseph’s deeds. I can’t remember if I talk about it in part three, but these are the three journal entries, and it’s really important to recognize that on the 12th is the day that the revelation was written, right? And it says. That last sentence in the yellow, Joseph told me to deed all the unencumbered lots to Emma and the children. He appears much troubled about Emma, and people point to this deed to Emma that was written on July 12, 1843 and say, Look, problem solved. And I think they miss some critical things that they’re not paying attention to. So I, what I talk about in that episode is how this is completely conflated for everyone who talks about it. Don Bradley says this all happened on. On the same day, um, many other people just kind of blend it all together because what they say happened is that Joseph and Emma were facing divorce. They needed to come up with a solution and arrangement. So the arrangement was that Joseph would deed, um, the lots to Emma because she was going to divorce him. And so that could be the arrangement. But if you look at this, it says that on the 13th, so on the 12th, the deed was supposedly written. On the 13th is when they. I had an arrangement, an agreement they mutually entered into and again they have this tearful meeting in front of William Clayton. I just, if, if we understand Emma Smith, I do not think that the other sources that talk about Emma Smith as a very private person who was very proper and very um she was not airing her dirty laundry around and I cannot imagine she would have wanted William Clayton to be a witness to. Any of to any of their Joseph and Emma’s conversations, if they even had these kinds of, I mean, no marriage is perfect, right? But think of you and your husband if you are like in one of those really difficult times and conversations, are you doing that in front of one of your husband’s employees? Right? That’s so strange. And so anyway, and then on the 15th, we have another case of made D for one half steamboat made of Iowa from Joseph. Emma, also deed to Emma for over 60 city lots, and that’s July 15th. So this is another time we have a really big problem because the deed for over 60 lots was written on July 12th. And then this is what I go into. This is the deed to Emma, and it’s called the draft for no reason, other, you know, it’s not finished and we don’t have a finished version of it. And it includes just over 60 lots. It includes 68 lots, but it’s dated the 12th. And then it is registered, although we don’t have a finished version of it, but one of the things they never take into account, yeah, there you can see that I go into this in much more depth in that episode that I did. But what you can see is that we have this unfinished deed that was never signed, never finished, never, um, sealed, that is somehow registered, but what they always leave out, oh yeah, I guess this is where it’s not finished, and you can see that it’s the, um, they, they can continue William Clayton, not they, William Clayton is responsible for every source we have on deeds. It all falls to William Clayton. But what they completely leave out is that William Clayton wrote a deed to Hirum that is stated the same day, the same day, the same amount of money, and almost the exact same lots just with a few differences. So there’s a huge overlap of lots, and this isn’t spoken about in his journal at all. So his narrative that he uses to try to that that people want to attach Emma’s deed to doesn’t work with the narrative he gives, and it completely neglects anything about this. To Hiram. There’s no way to explain this. And the other thing I’ll point out is that on the back of the Hiram’s deed you can see it is signed over to Emma. Hiram’s deed is at least finished and it’s sealed but not signed, and Hiram Smith is crossed out and Emma is written on the back. And from this point on, where the, the deed of Emma’s was left unfinished, and yet what was registered in Carthage matches up as if they as if Clayton just used the back of K’s. Deed as the finished part of Emma’s deed to um register or where where is it where it was registered in Carthage in this finished deed and so this is another case where I think we should pay attention to the fact that what we have in Clayton’s journal does not match the evidence that we see just similar to his letter to Margaret Moon, right, that the the journal entry does not match and that doesn’t seem to be adequately dealt with in in in the standard narrative that I have been able to see.

[1:02:54] Kimberly Brown: And also, I feel like we should check these things also by logic. Why would Emma Emma flip out so much because the revelation was written when the church claims that she had already given Emily and Eliza to Joseph on May 4th.

[1:03:11] Michelle: Right. Why wouldyrum say, if you just write the revelation, I know I can convince her when she had already been convinced, and then she gets the revelation. Also, the other things that I’ve pointed to is tracking the day of what was supposed to have happened on this day, right? And there was time for all of this to happen, plus the other things going on in Navvo. It doesn’t add up at all. And then the then that we throw in there that Clayton wrote these two extensive deeds. And then just the main point that I that I think is important to recognize is The way that the story is told is that Emma and Joseph got together, made an agreement, right? And the agreement was that they were gonna, Joseph was going to write over these deeds, and so we had Clayton write these deeds and then and then it doesn’t even account for the um the the entry on the 15th. That was when another deed for over 60 lots and the half interested in a steamboat made of Iowa. So it looks to me what I happen to um suspect, you know, I can’t prove it at this point and I would need to study it more. But after Joseph’s death, when there’s all of the, there are all of these problems, there are different, um. What do you call it, the administrators of Joseph’s will. There are different things happening and I, and there are, there’s a lot going on with the Maid of Iowa because um the lawyer that Emma brings in wants Clayton to give Emma the maid of Iowa. So it looks to me like this might be used in part to try to deal with that financial situation when Brigham and Clayton are working to keep all of the church property and give Emma all the debts.

[1:04:45] Kimberly Brown: Yes.

[1:04:46] Michelle: So, OK,

[1:04:47] Kimberly Brown: OK, and we can also see as we look at um Clayton’s family relations after July 12th, um there are more questions we should ask. OK. So on July 13th, um, we already went over this about them being and saying they made an agreement, they mutually entered into. Clayton writes, oh, may the Lord soften her heart that she may be willing to keep and abide by the holy law. This, um, this entry has no other journal records to back it up other than the deeds which you already discussed. So one week later, on July 22nd, Clayton writes Margaret and Clayton writes, Margaret and I had a long conversation together. She has stood true to her covenant with CW. It’s a little weird that he refers to himself as CW. Um, Clayton shows signs here of being worried about his spiritual standing. He continues in the journal, Thou knowest I have done that that which I have understood to be thy will. If I have done any, done wrong in this thing, show it unto thy servants so I may repent and obey and obtain forgiveness. So let’s apply some logic here looking at this entry. If the revelation on marriage had been the same as DNC 132. A man with a 2 month pregnant plural life should have been feeling pretty confident in his spiritual standing. DNC 1323 states. Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give you. Unto you, for all those who have this revealed unto them must obey the same. For behold, I reveal unto you a new and everlasting covenant, and if you ye abide not the covenant, ye are damned. Yes, but, and, but instead of being more confident in his righteousness, Um Clayton was more worried about his spiritual standing with God and his relationship with Margaret starts to get more rocky.

[1:06:54] Michelle: Yes, and, and so I guess you’re going into, I think part of the reason that he’s so concerned about, maybe this is a mistake is because of Margaret’s experience, right? Because her heart is dying, pierced with deep wounds, just as the Book of Mormon predicts. And also, if Clayton. is having doubts about this. Why isn’t he going to Joseph Smith and saying, Hey, I’m having doubts about this. Are we really sure this is right? Why is he going to God and saying, if I’ve done the wrong thing here, let me know, right?

[1:07:24] Kimberly Brown: Well, and in one of these next journals entries, he does talk. He, he states he talks to President Jay, but On July 24th, and he writes, Margaret is miserable and unhappy. I have repeatedly offered to Margaret to get a release of the covenant. Clayton does not refer to his covenant with Margaret as marriage in this journal. He does not call her a wife. And also the day before this on the 23rd, he said, Margaret appears dissatisfied with her situation and is miserable. Oh, that the Lord will bless thy house and deliver us from every evil principle that we may be saved, for I desire to do what is right. So, from the beginning in Clayton’s Manchester Journals, I could tell that he had sincere desire, like he wanted to do what was right, but I think one of his main flaws was where he placed his trust. On July 26th. Margaret seems quite embittered against me in consequence of which I have called her to me and asked if she desired the covenant to be revoked if it were possible. To this she gave me, gave me a satisfactory answer, only saying that if it had not been done, it should not be. I called the president out, so this is where he, um, he claims to talk to Joseph. He says, I called the president out and briefly stated the situation to him and asked if the covenant could be revoked. He shook his head and answered no. This is interesting based on what happened between Brigham Young and his wives later in Utah and what church historians claim happened between Joseph Smith and one other woman, Flora Woodworth.

[1:09:06] Michelle: Excellent. Well, I would say many other women, but maybe you’re going to go into Flora Woodworth. And it’s important, again, I just want to point out because Jeremy and I missed this in our conversation, and I know you’ve brought it up already. Margaret’s pregnant, right? And so, but yet she’s still saying she could go marry Erin Johnson, even though, um, like, like, like, so whatever this covenant is that she can’t be released from, maybe the difference now is that she’s pregnant and so it’s that much. More binding, but it would be anyway, it’s just interesting to say this new and everlasting covenant, this eternal covenant of marriage, and he’s saying, oh, it can be dissolved and then Joseph says no it can’t be dissolved. But then we have Joseph’s entire history according to the narrative, right? where maybe are you gonna go into that? I won’t go into it if you’re going to. No, um, you can go ahead. Oh, just, I mean, starting from the very beginning, Fanny Alger, right? And they claim that she’s a plural wife in this new and everlasting covenant, whatever it is. And then, yes, we have wife after wife after wife. Like Eliza and Emily are discarded from his home. It’s like, oh, sorry, Emma’s not happy. I guess the new and Everlasting Covenant is off and it’s, you know, like, like there’s this influx and then Flora Woodworth immediately marries another man after he supposedly marries her and stumps on her watch, that story just like that Clayton gives us. And then we have so many cases of this. And really, if you look at the, um, marriage records of so many of these people that that were being married after Joseph’s death, they were being married in Navvo and these plural marriages that are being dissolved as soon as they get to Utah, or they’re marrying someone else right after, it really does look much more like, like wife swapping. It does any idea of an eternal marriage and really, I guess that’s what we have from Warren Jeffs as well, like he just started swapping wives around, right? It really, and I know that they’ll say that was unauthorized, which is such a silly complaint. It’s exactly the same thing we have happening. So if it’s authorized with these people, we’re seeing the exact same thing that there is nothing eternal about these marriages. It’s making a mockery of the idea of eternal marriage.

[1:11:11] Kimberly Brown: Yes, I, I would agree based on Clayton’s understanding and Margaret’s understanding, this is not an eternal situation as they understood it. Mhm. So on July 27th, um, Clayton Wrights went to see President J in the a.m. He said if Aaron went to making me any trouble, he would defend me to the uttermost and stand by me through all, for which I feel thankful. Joseph’s journal makes no mention of meeting Clayton on this day. This is another entry um that is unverifiable and would be hearsay based on just Clayton alone.

[1:11:45] Michelle: Mhm. OK.

[1:11:48] Kimberly Brown: And skipping forward, um, on August 11th, Clayton says, I finally asked Joseph if I had done any wrong in what I had done and was answered, no, you have the right to get all you can. So this entry is. I would call it highly questionable based on Joseph Smith’s teachings. No other contemporaneous sources or documents exist from Joseph Smith’s teachings, allowing anyone to have more than one wife, let alone all the wives you want. Although this entry has no other data supporting it, there are multiple publications approved by Joseph Smith and recording teachings of him that witness against this.

[1:12:31] Michelle: And in addition I wish I um had all of these documents at the top of my head. I need to go dig them all out. I need everything memorized so I could bring it up but we have letters from Hebrew to Violet talking about it is my responsibility as a seed bearer to basically impregnate any woman who’s willing, right? So here where we have this, it is your right to get all you can that aligns very well with. Things we do have, um, firsthand documentation for a like letters from Hebrew to Violet saying it is my responsibility to get all I can to impregnate all the women that I can. Any any willing woman, I am obligated to be there.

[1:13:11] Kimberly Brown: And that would be data that would be contemporaneous data showing that Hebrewy Kimball was teaching this doctrine early on, um. I included here also that this teaching is something that was taught by Brigham Young and Hebrew C. Kimball. However, In April 1840, Joseph 8 1844, Joseph Smith authorized the publication of The Times and Seasons with an entry that said, some of your elders say that a man having a certain priesthood may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here. I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, for there is no such doctrine taught here, neither is there any such thing practiced here. Joseph Smith’s journal includes no meeting or interaction with Clayton on the day that Clayton says he had this significant conversation.

[1:14:05] Michelle: This is, this is so good. So I wanna just drill down on this just for a minute because, you know, the constant explanation is, no, Joseph was denying. Um, John Bennett’s spiritual wifery, he was denying a community of wives, but he was not denying celestial plural marriage, which is so bad for so many reasons. Joseph never said celestial plural marriage. He denied it in every way he could. The term plural marriage didn’t come up until much later, right? It’s anachronistic to apply that to Joseph Smith. But so I want, is it possible, I want to ask people, is it possible to defend what Clayton is writing, writing here? As celestial plural marriage, while claiming that Joseph Smith’s denial couldn’t apply to it. Do you know what I’m saying? Like if Joseph said it is your right to get all you can, that doesn’t sound to me like Joseph is the one holding all the keys and that has to authorize each of these. He’s just getting telling Clayton, no, get all the women you can get, right? He’s giving him the go ahead to do that. And so how would, how could Joseph Smith say this to Clayton and how could it qualify as celestial plural marriage while Joseph’s denial there where it says some men teach that they can have as many wives as they want that nothing like that is taught or practiced here. Do you, do you get what I’m saying? Is there any way to make that work in their with their excuse?

[1:15:30] Kimberly Brown: It, it just does not make sense. If Joseph Smith was secretly practicing polygamy while publicly denying it, we would expect his secret teachings and secret writings would support that. Instead we see public writings and secret writings and denying polygamy.

[1:15:48] Michelle: For example, if it’s called, if the doctrine is called celestial plural marriage, and God gave a revelation on the secret sacred doctrine of celestial plural marriage, we would expect God to call it celestial plural marriage. Instead, the revelation calls it the practice and practice and the principle. and doctrine or the practice of doctrine of having many wives and concubines, right? So that’s what we have to say Joseph is defending. The only thing it’s called, even up until 1852 is the practice of having many wives and concubines. That’s something people need to acknowledge

[1:16:23] Kimberly Brown: going forward. So because there are no other journal entries on around this date supporting Joseph Smith teaching this doctrine. Um, I included a few witnesses from the teachings and publications around in the next few months. So, just two months after this journal entry, Joseph’s private journal states, the October 5th journal entry, went up and down the street with my scribe, gave instruction to try those who were preaching, teaching, and practicing was crossed out, but practicing the doctrine of plurality of wives. On this law, Joseph forbids it, and the practice thereof. No man shall have but one wife. Then next, on November 1st, Joseph Smith published another chapter in the history of the church which stated that Thou shalt not lie. He that lieth and does not repent shall be cast out. Thou shalt love the wife, thy wife with all thine heart and shall cleave unto her and none else. And he that looketh on a woman to lust after her shall deny the faith and not have the spirit. And if he repents not, he shall be cast out. If ye find any persons have left their spouses for the sake of adultery, and they themselves are the offenders and their companions are still living, they shall be cast out from among you. And then. On November 21, 1843, Joseph Smith brought two charges against Harrison Sagers, an elder in the church. The first was for using his name to seduce a woman into becoming a spiritual wife and for lying by claiming that Joseph Smith allowed polygamy and spiritual wifery. Joseph’s journal records, I was present with several of the 12 and gave an address tending to do away with every evil and exhorted them to practice virtue and holiness before the Lord. I told them that the church had received. Um, had not received any permission from me to commit fornication, adultery, or any corrupt action, but my every word in action has been to the contrary. So church historians claimed that Joseph Smith had about 29 secret polygamist wives at this time.

[1:18:29] Michelle: Yep, and if anyone hasn’t watched my episode on Harrison Sagers, I do go into this because one thing that is really important to look at is what, um, Wilfred Woodruff recorded that Joseph Smith said in this. He, he rejected and denied it in total and forbid it. Like it says, like, there is no version of. Anything other than one man and one wife and then looking at how the um the polygamist historians changed what Utah um what Joseph Smith said and how later historians refer to the later version. It’s really interesting to see how we get this narrative and how it came about.

[1:19:06] Kimberly Brown: Yes, and although there were 29 secret polygamist wives allegedly there are no ceiling records supporting that from before the martyrdom. And um Joseph Smith’s teachings strongly publicly preach against polygamy even after that revelation of marriage was given. Yeah. So, I included the words you were just talking about in the trial of Joseph Smith of Sager’s. He says, I told them I had at the church had not received any permission to commit adultery and fornication. I’m going to skip down. If a man commit adultery, he can never enter the celestial kingdom of God. I did think the many examples that have been made manifest as such by John C. Bennett and others who were practicing spiritual wifery and polygamy were sufficient to show the fallacy of such a course of conduct. So I have talked to some polygamy asserters who state that because this um the charges were dismissed, that’s evidence that Joseph Smith obviously was OK with polygamy. But also 12 of the apostles who were um jurors were secretly practicing polygamy at this time. Excuse me, I meant um 6 of the 12 jurors were a polygamist, OK,

[1:20:23] Michelle: and Joseph did not everyone acts like Joseph, like exerted this control that everyone was just his yes men doing whatever he wanted. That is absolutely not the case, as we can see from two in a row of his first counselors in his first presidency. Not only um disagreeing with him and leaving but opposing him and trying to get him killed, right? Like he had many people oppose him and he, and he, he did not have this iron fist of control like we like to claim that he did. He let let this go the court. With the high counsel, which he was not controlling. I don’t think there’s good evidence to say it was controlling. And then as soon as the decision gave came is when he gave his sermon saying this is not allowed to happen. I’m like none of this is correct. Let me say it again, right?

[1:21:11] Kimberly Brown: And so

[1:21:13] Michelle: yes,

[1:21:13] Kimberly Brown: so he makes it very clear. Um, also worth noting, so, um, Brigham Young, Wilfred Woodruff, and William Phelps were on a mission when the revelation on marriage was given. They were on the East Coast, so they missed, um, July and they missed August. And so, They could not be used as witnesses, um for the origin of that revelation. Yes, good point. Mhm. Then August 13th, um. Two days after um the previous journal entry, Lydia, Margaret’s mother, hears Joseph preach, then comes home very worried about Margaret. So why would Joseph Smith’s sermon spur Lydia Moon, um, to be so concerned? Allan reported that she actually wanted to move out. Um, so I looked up Joseph’s journal and what other people had recorded he taught on this day. Joseph taught the doctrine of election to Abraham was in relation to the Lord. Um, a man wishes to be embraced in the covenant of Abraham. A man judged in the world of spirits is sealed unto the throne and doctrine of election sealing the father and children together. So this sermon was talking about sealing families together, fathers and children. Um, there’s no reference to polygamy, but if Margaret Earth and Lydia Moon and Margaret Moon had been taught that the covenant of Abraham was polygamy, that would be something that would make her realize she had been told a different doctrine by Clayton.

[1:22:47] Michelle: Yes, also we have to recognize that none of the records we have of um Joseph’s sermons are complete, right? And the sermons that we have several different records, they tend to, there’s some overlap sometimes, but they often include different portions of it and different parts and we didn’t get different elements and Willard Richards might have not been likely to include Joseph’s anti-polygamy sentiments that might have been that it sounds like very likely were given in this topic. For example, William Clayton didn’t record Hirum’s April 1844 sermon that you referenced before, right? He recorded all of the notes from that but failed to record that one. And so we have a lot of, um, anyway, so I, I think that this journal entry is stronger evidence that there was anti-polygamy sentiment taught in that sermon as well that maybe Lord Richard just failed to record.

[1:23:41] Kimberly Brown: And it’s also evidence that whatever revelation was recorded on July 12th was not something that would make Margaret, Lydia, or Clayton feel more confident in their polygamy. Mhm. So August 19th, 1843, Clayton Wright’s Evening went to President Jay’s, did not see him. M says Diane Thear said today she believed M, and I was vexed at her and she almost felt disposed to go to every house in the city and tell all she knew, then come home and kill herself. So this is terrible to hear.

[1:24:16] Michelle: This is about Margaret M. I just want to point out for anyone wondering, Margaret said to Diane the far, yeah, go ahead.

[1:24:22] Kimberly Brown: Yeah, so Margaret um has likely been, you know, hearing what her mother had told her about Joseph Smith’s teachings as well, and I’m sure a lot of rumors were going around Navu about the doctrine of healing, and she, um, She wants to go tell everyone and then kill herself.

[1:24:42] Michelle: She had been convinced that this was necessary for her exaltation, or that this was God’s will, or that it was OK or whatever it was. She’s trapped, she’s pregnant. She hears that that’s not the truth, but she can’t see a way out, right? And you were going to say something else.

[1:24:57] Kimberly Brown: Yes, I’m just continuing. This is over one month after the revelation on marriage had been given. And it was the day after they say 132 was read to the high council by Hiram Smith. If the revelation on marriage was the same and it had been as DNC 132 and it had been written on July 12th and read to the high council, there would have been nothing to tell everybody. The cat was out of the bag.

[1:25:23] Michelle: Yes, good point. And again, people might, I mean, you can’t explain this away by saying, oh well this was an unauthorized marriage, right? Like, like, like, no, that’s the whole point. Clayton is the is the source telling us that Joseph gave him permission and sent money to get Margaret and bring her here. This is the ultimate authorized marriage, and this is what it is.

[1:25:44] Kimberly Brown: Yes, only if we can rely on Clayton telling the Sre about this marriage. Um, and on the 16th of August, This is a journal entry where Clayton reports a different story than everybody else does regarding Emily and Eliza Partridge. Emily Partridge swore in the Temple at trial that she was married to Joseph Smith on May 11, 1843. Emily’s 1869 affidavit also lists May 11, 1843 as the date. Um, if Clayton was constantly with Joseph Smith as his secretary, there’s no way he could have missed a marriage between Emily and Eliza, um, three months before this. Yeah. So let me read, see, so Clayton says this AMJ told me that since Emma came back from Saint Louis, she had resisted the priesthood in total, and he had to tell her he would relinquish all for her sake. She said she would have given him Emily and Eliza Partridge, but he knew if he took them she would pitch on him and obtain a divorce and leave him. He, however, told me he should not relinquish anything of God and deliver thy servant from iniquity and bondage. So once again, I checked all of the available sources and no other documents or data to back up this entry. If anything, it shows that um if the history as it’s recorded that Emily and Eliza were sealed to Joseph Smith in May is true, this entry would have to be false. I think that it is possible that both Clayton’s journal here and the um The accounts of Emily and Eliza and May could have been incorrect, but both of them cannot be true.

[1:27:31] Michelle: Yes. And also just speaking to this last thing he said he should not relinquish anything of God, right? Um, that’s interesting as well because if, like, I, I just am thinking of William Mark’s account that he interpreted to think that Joseph was saying that I’ve been deceived about polygamy, that I think there are other ways to interpret that he’s been deceived about the brethren, but he claims that Joseph said, we’ve got to get rid of this. It’s Going to lead to our destruction and that Joseph was repentant of polygamy at the end of his life. I, I, I, you know, I’m not saying that that’s what, um, I, I think that’s an important, um, document to look into, but it’s interesting to me again how it contradicts with this, right? We, there’s not a con uh consistent storyline that we can make from these documents that the polygamy asserters want to all bring on board.

[1:28:20] Kimberly Brown: Yes, and it’s like they’re trying to take all of the records, all of the statements that were made after the martyrdom, and somehow make them all work when they do not all work. And generally

[1:28:30] Michelle: the parts they want from them and ignoring all the rest, omitting everything else and not dealing with it very well.

[1:28:36] Kimberly Brown: Yes, and they do not deal with the fact that Emily Partridge in the Temple Lot trial, she swore that May 11th was the date that Emma gave her to Joseph Smith to be married, and she was proven false in court when the Um The lawyer was able to present Joseph Smith’s journal and showed that Emily or that Emma was out of town on the day Emily said she sealed or she gave Emily to Joseph Smith.

[1:29:01] Michelle: Emily, Emma was out of town. Judge Adams was not yet in town, and Joseph Smith’s day was so full there was no time for a ceiling, and so she has to backtrack on that. Mhm.

[1:29:12] Kimberly Brown: All right. On August 23rd, Clayton reports that Emma was being confrontational again. He writes, President Jay told me he had trouble with Emma yesterday. She rode up to Woodworth’s with him and called while he came to the temple. When he returned, she was demanding the gold watch of Flora. He reproved her for her evil treatment. On their return, she abused him much and also when he got home, he had to use harsh measures to put a stop to her abuse, but finally succeeded. This evening, I had more conversation with M and find she is stubborn and disposed to abuse me. So this entry um has no contemporaneous data to back it up. Joseph’s journal includes no concerns with Emma or writing up to the Woodworths and other journal records. Another, this is another entry where we get to decide. Do we believe William Clayton’s account here or every other contemporaneous document showing the love and kindness between Joseph Smith and Emma?

[1:30:10] Michelle: Yes, and also we can add to this one with Flora that this, this account apparently Joseph had just married Flora, right, or was and and Emma’s freaking out like this. And then we have Helen Mar Kimball right in her reminiscence that after Joseph died, Flora married a non-member and regretted it, right? But then when Flora Woodworth’s marriage certificate was found, it showed that Flora married his her non. Husband just days after this happened, I believe I can’t remember the exact date, but it’s just days after. So it’s one day after the next, the very next day. OK, thank you. And so again, the more evidence that we find, the more we holes we poke into all of these accounts that we are given of what was supposedly happening. So we have Clayton claiming that Joseph said that the covenant could not be undone, and then like you had mentioned, he marries Flora, and then the very next day she marries another man.

[1:31:06] Kimberly Brown: Yes. Well, and also, so it’s interesting to see how much of the history was entirely writing on this William Clayton Journal. So Clayton is also the only contemporaneous source claiming that Joseph Smith gave gold watches to women. Yes,

[1:31:23] Michelle: right here. And that Emma was out of control like this, that she was basically deriding him on this carriage ride through town, right? And then he had to abuse her? Like, well, no. He had to use harsh measures to stop her abuse. What does that mean? And again, was Clayton a witness to any of this? It is so horrible what he’s accusing them of. I mean, he’s basically accusing Joseph of spousal abuse. It sounds like to me, what harsh measures to use to silence a very upset, angry wife.

[1:31:56] Kimberly Brown: Yes. And there was the, you know, 1880 account that you mentioned of someone saying that, you know, Um, Flora regretted marrying another person, um, after this. But interestingly, other than that, the only other account we have backing up this watch story was written by Brigham Young’s, um, younger brother who was 6, not even 7 years old at the time of this, and he wrote it in 1912. It was a journal entry he wrote in 1912. And so

[1:32:25] Michelle: there’s just a I want to point to this. Sorry, go ahead. What? What did you say?

[1:32:31] Kimberly Brown: It’s just very, very poor evidence. It’s unlikely that a six year old boy would have been hanging out right around Joseph and Emma to report this occurrence.

[1:32:40] Michelle: Oh, absolutely not, and remembered it, but, but it does. Touch on something that I want to draw attention to because I think many people just think how how can you claim that they wrote these things and they weren’t true? How are they coming up with them? How are they making up these stories but this is what I think it’s important to recognize we have many accounts like that from. From people who would have been 6 or 8 at right at the time writing these detailed accounts, we have Helen Markimball’s detailed accounts of the things that Joseph said and did that there is no evidence for and that actually do not work with any evidence we have. Helen Mar Kimball’s whole The idea of polygamy is how bad monogamy is, how monogamy is actually a wicked thing and an evil thing, right? It doesn’t go with anything that we that we want to say now. So anyway, that’s a good example to say, yes, people were just making things up. They were like writing historical fiction. They were making an account. Based on a couple of little things they heard or saw to defend this position that they wanted to defend or to aggrandize themselves that they had insider information or for whatever reason. It was they were making things up just like my cousin who who has been working on our family history and I read an account that she had written thinking it was real and then came to came to realize oh she was just making up stories. She didn’t say that in the history, but she wanted the children that that heard the history to have stories about their ancestors so she just made things up to include so all of those children are going to hear these stories and think that they’re true, not knowing that their grandmother just. Just made them up, right? This, this is what this this isn’t that hard to understand that people do this and people did this.

[1:34:24] Kimberly Brown: Yes, especially, you know, and like we know that these journals were rewritten and there is evidence that Clayton painted certain people in um a different light. Like for instance, Sarah Crooks when she became Sarah Cook and married someone else, um. Jeremy Hoop went over how he writes in his journal that she somehow was involved with the martyrdom with zero evidence backing it up. So Clayton does have a history of portraying people according to his opinions.

[1:34:53] Michelle: Yes, and that the one other point I want to make is that one thing that historians will say, to say that these are like just how the um at the at the William Clinton panel at the Clayton Journal’s panel, how he said these are Navu. Documents these are what they are using to say that in large part are the fact that that some of the dates do line up, that most of the dates do line up but what they’re failing to acknowledge is yes, William Clayton was keeping a journal and to think that he couldn’t use that to recopy this journal, right? I mean they’re acknowledging that it’s recopied and that it had to come from notes or it had to come from something. So it shouldn’t be that surprising that several of the dates line up because he did have a journal that he was using to recopy this. Our, our, um, proposal is that he was recopying it in a motivated way and changing it in a motivated way to tell a story that he want wanted told, and I think it’s very hard to say that can’t be the case. And I just, sorry, I keep wanting to make these points, but another point that I think is important. because some when I have these exchanges with historians, you know, they’ll say, like, like, well, you can’t just say that about and they’ll use other examples of documents that aren’t relevant. And, and the challenge here isn’t just that you could take someone’s family history and say, oh, well, look, it has similar problems, or, oh, look at, you know, he, he, he recopied it. Therefore, you, you couldn’t, you know, it’s not just That it’s recopied, it’s the fact that we have two different versions of who Joseph Smith was with strong evidence. So it’s not just a um that this this happened to be recopied. So therefore we’re questioning it. It’s that we have all of this evidence that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist and we have this one source saying that he was. And then when we look at all of the problems about it, we are saying which is more likely to be. Through it’s not just in a vacuum that William Clayton recopied his journal. Therefore, we’re questioning it. It’s that we have this mountain of evidence from Joseph Smith’s own mouth and Hiram Smith and Emma Smith and Joseph Smith the Third and Lucy Matt Smith and Joseph’s sister Catherine and so many others plus all of the um lack of evidence that we should see including children and records and financial bills bills and journals and everything like that. Against William Clayton’s journal, and William’s Journal has problems. That’s what we’re talking about.

[1:37:11] Kimberly Brown: Yeah, exactly. It sometimes paying attention to the details, pay attention to the things that are missing, like any correspondence or, you know, sign of care from Joseph Smith for any other wife. Like in 1842, Emma got very sick, I think. And she might have had malaria, but she was on her deathbed. Joseph Smith was worried she was going to die. So it was at the time when he was in hiding because Governor Boggs wanted to arrest him. He would sneak out at night to sleep with her at night because he was so worried about her. This is at the same time, he has 2 or 3 other plural life they claim. But he doesn’t care about them.

[1:37:49] Michelle: Right, right. And the, the, um, interactions I go over in the Whitney documents episodes that I did and then and how he speaks about Emma as the wife of his youth and what that is attached to in the Old Testament and the New Testament, talking about you may have one wife and decrying polygamy in the very scriptures that talk about. We have so much evidence of the relationship between Joseph and Emma and such a, like, anyway, uh, I was going to say such a possibility of evidence, but people use that and say, oh, that’s what we’d expect to see. No, it’s not. No, it is not what we would expect to see. You can’t just keep saying they can’t just keep saying that and have it be sufficient.

[1:38:27] Kimberly Brown: Yes, and also women remember their wedding dates. Women like, even if it was just something happened today, something I will remember happened today, there’s not a hint of that in any of the women’s journals.

[1:38:40] Michelle: Yeah. And all of the sources that they do use to claim it, we can show huge problems with. It’s all manufactured. And so, yeah, this is a really, these are, these are huge problems for the polygamy asserters that need to be dealt with all the way through.

[1:38:54] Kimberly Brown: Absolutely, and it’s looking at the details where you see the problems in a lot of the claims. But on August 26th, Clayton reports that Joseph spent time talking with Flora Woodworth. So, again, you know, they claim that there are 29 wives. Clayton’s journal actually only really talks about three women, Emily, Emily and Eliza Partridge, I guess, Lucy Walker, and Flora Woodworth, so maybe 4, but So, Clayton reports that Joseph talked to Flora on this day. Joseph’s journal does not mention meeting with Flora Woodworth. No other journal record or data backs this century up. On the twenty-eighth, Clayton claims President Jay met with Ms. Woodworth at my house. Again, no other record backs this up. This is once again unverifiable hearsay.

[1:39:45] Michelle: And wasn’t married by that point, right? Married to the other man? How many days later was that?

[1:39:50] Kimberly Brown: Let’s go back one. yes, she would have been married to the other man.

[1:39:55] Michelle: That’s yeah

[1:39:58] Kimberly Brown: I wonder where her husband is there. On the 19th, um, Clayton reports that Joseph and Emma received their anointings. He also claims that Joseph told him that Emma said it was her advice to keep Margaret at home. And it was also his counsel. He says just keep her at home and brook it, and if they raise trouble about about it and bring you before me, I will give you an awful scourging and probably cut you off from the church. Then I will baptize you and set you as good as ever. Does this sound like Joseph Smith to you?

[1:40:32] Michelle: This is where we get the narrative. This one source, I believe, is where we get the entire narrative that Joseph didn’t mean what he said and didn’t say what he meant, right? This is where they get the story that they applied to the Harrison Sager’s case and to all of the other cases where Joseph was doing one thing publicly with the courts and excommunicating people the hype, you know, falsely, but then was doing something different in private and secretly again it just comes from William Clayton.

[1:40:57] Kimberly Brown: Yes, it’s not coming from any of the other apostles who should have been much closer to Joseph Smith and William Clayton, who was not the person responsible for keeping Joseph’s journals. Um, yeah,

[1:41:08] Michelle: and he was not in a high calling. He was not in a high office. He wasn’t entrusted with much and people want to throw out James Whitehead, but we do have James Whitehead saying that there were problems with William Clayton, that he wasn’t as well trusted. So and even later on, Brigham Young and the the later leaders did not elevate William Clayton. He, he was kind of a guy that was really unlikable. It seems to me in general, people weren’t terribly fond of William Clayton, and he wasn’t elevated. So it’s very strange that it’s not terribly strange that he would put himself as Joseph’s number one guy in his own journal where he’s centering himself and creating this version. It is very strange to think that Joseph would have William Clayton hold. William Clayton in this regard as the one confidant where he talked about his problems with Emma and his highest doctrines when he wasn’t talking to Hiram about any of those things, right? We can trace some of the challenges with Hiram and Mary in their in their marriage through their letters and through other records. Whitney Horning has done a great job of that. We have those records. We have nothing like that about Joseph and Emma,

[1:42:11] Kimberly Brown: yes. Um, this journal entry goes against Joseph Smith’s teachings and his history of integrity and his actions and teachings. No other journal written during the lifetime of Joseph Smith reports on teaching or behaving as this entry reports.

[1:42:28] Michelle: And you know I have a question because I, I’m either not remembering or I haven’t found anything. I would like to ask historians or people who disagree with me, can you show me a case of Joseph publicly excommunicating someone and then baptizing him secretly? I, I’m really curious about that. I can find out with Brigham Young and John D. Lee, right? That’s a really good case of this exact thing being played out where Brigham Young. Publicly let John D. Lee be the scapegoat goat, not that he didn’t deserve to be blamed for mountain meadows, but he really was the scapegoat that was left to take, take all of the blame, or he didn’t deserve all of the blame. There were others to blame. But then Brigham Young secretly reordained him and, you know, had him put back just as good as ever, as I said. I am curious if anyone who claims that this is what Joseph Smith did can show me an example of this. I don’t know if one off the top of my head.

[1:43:21] Kimberly Brown: No, I have not found one. So when I read all of the teachings of Joseph Smith, I watched for any doctrines supporting this and lying for the Lord or a polygamy, and I did not find anything.

[1:43:34] Michelle: So I’m OK, I want to propose that. I hope that some historians are watching, and I want to ask you if, again, I think that Kim has laid out a good, you know, I’m, I’m sure the historians already know this. Standards that they’re supposed to be using, but we have this one claim from this problematic, this admittedly problematic William Clayton journal saying that Joseph said this and that he would do this and historians just seem to embrace this and say this is what Joseph Smith did because of this please show us one example of Joseph Smith ever doing this and and if you can’t then please question whether you should use this source in this way.

[1:44:08] Kimberly Brown: Mhm. So jumping forward to August 29th, I am at the temple President Joseph at my house with Ms. Woodworth again. Joseph’s Journal by Richards says Joseph was actually holding court in the 8 a.m. for a court case called Hotchkisson. In the p.m. he held another um case. Clayton states he personally was at the temple, but writes in his journal that Joseph was at his house, despite Joseph being in court all day. OK. So I wonder with this entry, is this speculation and conjecture like the Kinderhook entry? It’s also not backed up by any other person saying, oh, we, you know, Willie Richards didn’t say drove Joseph to Flora Woodward’s house. Mhm. On April 9, 1844. So this is jumping quite ahead. There’s no other journal entry that supports polygamy between that last one and this is um Clayton shows himself to give a misleading record regarding polygamy on April 9, 1844, when he listens to Hirum’s speech against polygamy. Clayton was present and taking notes, but he left out Hirum’s entire speech. Clayton writes, At the conference all day, Ameler Rickton preached. PM President Hirum talked on spiritual wives and after Joseph discoursed on the dead. So I know some people may say, well, he wrote, they he talked about spiritual life, so it’s not technically lying, but when you see what Hiram actually said, which is The one reason I speak to the elders is in consequence of the 10,000 reports abroad. Almost any man, every man runs to me to inquire how many spiritual wives a man may have. I am authorized to tell you from henceforth that any man who comes in and tells such damn fool doctrine to come and take away his license. So I know I mentioned that earlier, but just to cement it in. Clayton proves himself to be an an incomplete and inaccurate recorder of the history of this entry.

[1:46:19] Michelle: And I do just want to add, because it’s important to me that that Brigham spoke after Hiram. I, I thought Hiram’s sermon was on the 8th, was on April 8th. That’s how I usually dated. So if we’re talking, I’ll have to look again because I’ve seen some people date it on the 9th. So, um, I’ve dated on the 8th, but, and I thought that Brigham spoke the next day on the 9th, but maybe, I maybe, maybe I need to redate that and look into it. But in any case, Brigham spoke after this. And he does talk about spiritual wives in a positive light. He says, This is a spiritual wife. This is what a spiritual wife is. So it looks to me like he’s in this talk, and then one immediately after Joseph’s death, he’s beginning his grooming of the people. He’s grooming them into the practice, using the term spiritual wife, but not directly applying it to polygamy, but just, but using spiritual wife in a positive light. Where Hiram had used it in such a negative light, right? And then he goes from there. Oh, go

[1:47:12] Kimberly Brown: ahead. Yes, I was just going to say, so Brigham Young, who had a few, a few plural wives at this point, he probably realized that his wives would be bothered by Hiram’s speech, so he speaks, he talks about a spiritual wife like a religious wife, like a wife that can give blessings and help with the sick. Right, and it’s to cover himself because,

[1:47:36] Michelle: OK, that’s OK to cover himself and, and I think also to start undermining the things that Hiram is saying, to start grooming the people, I think both, yeah, that’s real, it’s really interesting, isn’t it? and troubling.

[1:47:48] Kimberly Brown: So it seems like to me when I read Brigham Young’s talk, it sounded defensive based on what Hiram said. So on May 21st, um, Clayton reported that when Joseph had ridden outside of Navvo to keep away from an officer with a subpoena, he sent to Clayton to find out how Emma felt about Joseph returning home. Clayton writes, Um, I found her crying with rage and fury because she, because Joseph had gone away. He said she wanted him to go home. I came and told Joseph, and he returned home at 9 o’clock. So Philerup noted in this, um, journal that Clayton did not report in his journal that Emma was actually very sick at the time, and Joseph was worried about her. So, this entry shows Clayton was portraying a different version of Emma than what Joseph Smith would have portrayed.

[1:48:47] Michelle: OK, absolutely. And also, we know how much effort Emma put into keeping Joseph safe, to keeping him out of the hands of the posse and the police and the, you know, all of the people chasing him. So the idea that she would throw a fit, that he was in hiding. Right,

[1:49:05] Kimberly Brown: she would want him

[1:49:06] Michelle: safe. Yes. Like, yeah, OK, this is good. This is good for, Kim.

[1:49:13] Kimberly Brown: All right. So, um, I think we should learn from the mistakes of the past. So as a third great grandchild of William Clayton and Margaret Moon. So William Clayton, he’s, he was a very faithful person. On his mission, he talks about wanting to follow God and And I think we could learn from the mistakes of some of these early church members. Um, those who do not, who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. I think we should appreciate our ancestors for the good things they did that bless our lives, but we must be able to acknowledge and learn from their mistakes. Um, from Clayton, um, William Clayton would have been protected from the teachings of the elders in England and in Navvo who were teaching polygamy against the teachings of Joseph Smith in 1843 if he had seriously taken the doctrine and covenants, which he had in 1840. And if he had paid attention to these scriptures, so in D and C 4222, it says, Thou shalt love thy wife with all thine heart and cleave unto her and none else. D and C 49:16 says, Wherefore it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the ends of its creation. So those two were familiar with, that should have made um William Clayton pause at a doctrine that told him about some covenant that allowed him to have sexual activity with someone who wasn’t his wife. Yeah. Um, DNC 433 says, and know you and this ye shall know assuredly that there is none other person, and none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, until Joseph be taken if he abided me. So based on this verse, um, Brigham Young would not have been able to give new commandments and revelations to members against the commandments given by Joseph Smith before the martyrdom. So although any member is entitled to receive answers and revelation from God, you don’t, we don’t, we’re not entitled to give commandments to other people.

[1:51:28] Michelle: Yeah. And you could add to that list of, um, well, the Book of Mormon, right? Like you were talking about how important it is that we know the scriptures, so we can avoid this kind of false spirit and deception. And I mean, the most, the, the best known, Jacob 2:24. Behold, David and Solid Solomon truly had many wives and concubines. Which thing was abominable before me, sayeth the Lord, and skipping down to 27. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me and hearken to the word of the Lord, for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife and concubines he shall have none. And it’s not just talking about two the Nephites. That’s the stoop like every way that they twist themselves. We’re supposed to like these scriptures to us when it says no man among you, that means to anyone reading this book, right? This is the truth of God for those who will accept it.

[1:52:15] Kimberly Brown: Yes, exactly. And um Jesus Christ refuted the false doctrines and traditions of the Pharisees and Sadducees by understanding the scriptures. William Clayton would have been 100% protected from a doctrine that did cause him a lot of heartache in his life. Um, I read the biography of William Clayton and there are some pretty miserable things later. But for Margaret Moon, I, I also learned from her. So from William Clayton, I must know the scriptures. I’m grateful that Clayton um converted to the church, the gospel has blessed my life. Um, but I think we should learn from his mistakes too. Um, for Margaret Moon, I’m very grateful that she did not kill herself when she discovered William Clayton’s polygamy was against the teachings of Joseph Smith. But if she had been brave enough to go to Joseph Smith directly to tell the world of Clayton’s and Brigham Young’s teachings. Um, this false narrative would not, would have been stopped in its tracks. William Clayton would have been shown to be one of the men secretly living polygamy against the doctrines of Joseph Smith.

[1:53:25] Michelle: Yeah, William Clayton would have been like John Bennett, right? We’d have, we’d hold him in the same light. That’s a great insight.

[1:53:32] Kimberly Brown: Exactly. And that’s part of why I wanted to speak to you today. I feel like I’ve been very guided by the Holy Ghost as I’ve studied the history, and I think that if we’re willing to speak up with the truths we find more and more people can understand this truth of the history.

[1:53:48] Michelle: I love that. I think that’s such a great insight. Tell me if you want me to add your slides back, but, um, but I think that’s so true because we talk, I loved the insight you had about Margaret Moon and yes, how we can follow that example and have the courage to, um, to just speak up about these things, even if, you know, even if people are telling us we have to be quiet, what good can we do? If you look at Margaret Moon. The power that one woman could have had it, that’s such a great insight, right? Margaret M was just a woman who maybe didn’t feel at all empowered and felt afraid and ashamed, and who knows what else. And she was so miserable. She was like, dramatically suicidal in her life. And man, I, I, I, I think that’s a profound insight that if she had gone to Joseph, if she had gone to any, if she’d gone to Emma and said, this is what’s happening, we would have a completely different history in the church.

[1:54:40] Kimberly Brown: It is true. And this next, um, this next slide, I have, um, on April 1st, so Clayton, you know, he had believed the teachings of Brigham Young, um, and became sealed to Margaret Moon, but he could have at any point realized that Joseph Smith’s teachings were against what he had been told by Brigham Young. Um, on in April 1844, Joseph Smith published a letter to the elders abroad. That um should have made any polygamous person pause and wonder if they had made a mistake. He writes, or Joseph Smith’s entry to the elders or a letter to the elders abroad says, if any man writes to you or preaches to you any doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the Book of doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an impostor. You need not write to us to know what to do with such men. You have the authority with you. Try them by the acknowledged word of God. If they preach, teach, or practice contrary to that, just fellowship them. And cut them off from among you as useless.

[1:55:50] Michelle: Uh, the more you get into it, doesn’t it just seem amazing how much we ignore, how much we have to ignore a way to go with this narrative and how hard people push back on it. OK, keep going. Yes,

[1:56:01] Kimberly Brown: so going back, um, To the credibility of William Clayton’s journals. So we’ve shown multiple journal entries which call into question the accuracy and trustworthiness of these entries. Most people do not realize that all the claims made by Joseph that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy depend on trusting this journal. To believe William Clayton’s account, you do have to ignore you, you have to believe that Joseph Smith lied in these following quotes. So on May 26th, Joseph 1844, Joseph said, A man asked me whether a commandment had been given that a man may have seven wives, and now the new prophet William Law has charged me with adultery. What a thing to it is to be accused of having seven wives when I can find only one. I am the same man as innocent as I was 14 years ago, and I can prove them all perjurers. It is with looking at the journals, looking at Joseph Smith’s journals and looking closely at the details that you see that they do prove these other accounts as perjury or unprovable, and he says, I have rattled chains and dungeons for the truth’s sake. I’m innocent of all these charges. I personally think that we should believe his words.

[1:57:20] Michelle: I, I agree. And not just because he’s Joseph Smith, not just because even for believers, not just because he’s the prophet of the restoration, and for all of those who aren’t believers, I want to clarify, you and I, Kim, don’t believe him just because he’s the prophet of the restoration, right? We believe him because, well, for me, I have come to learn that. is a trustworthy source because of all of this other evidence. When I look at all of the evidence on the ground, I see that it backs up what Joseph Smith says, and it refutes William Clayton’s journal and it refutes the later affidavits and it refutes, you know, the entire poly polygamy narrative does not align well with the actual evidence that we find. Particularly in Navu. And I just, that, that is why I think, you know, I did think Joseph Smith lied. I thought he was a liar. I believed that until I dug into the evidence and saw that it was not what I thought it was.

[1:58:17] Kimberly Brown: Yes, exactly. We must be able to apply the data, you know, weight the data over DAPA and this, um. So, can we trust Clayton’s Navu diaries? We have multiple entries, or one entry that’s provably false, multiple entries which are inconsistent with Clayton’s own later statements and affidavits, and multiple entries with hearsay contradictory to all other contemporaneous sources. And going back to that, um. Historical analysis of historical sources. So we need to consider the writer’s expertise. So, we know that William Clayton was never the official journal recorder for Joseph Smith, but he was with Brigham Young and Hebrew C. Kimball on his mission and fairly close to Joseph Smith in 1834. So I’d say for expertise, fairly OK.

[1:59:11] Michelle: He also had no high calling. He was not one that would have been entrusted with these highest, holiest sacred doctrines. Yes, it’s hard to explain that.

[1:59:20] Kimberly Brown: Yes, and how about for the context in which the source was created? We know these journals were rewritten at some point, whether in Navvo or after leaving Navu, but it was also rewritten at a time when Clayton was trying to get back in good graces with Brigham Young. Mhm. who was a practicing polygamist who had strong feelings against Emma.

[1:59:45] Michelle: Yep, yes, Clayton also was desperate to defend polygamy, which he had come to. Agree with, yes, which she was practicing.

[1:59:55] Kimberly Brown: And also, we need to consider the source’s purpose. So, what was the purpose of rewriting these journals? Well, writing them, I think Clayton was a regular, he was an avid journal writer. He wanted to keep a record, but why rewrite? Um, my brainstorming is that the only reason to rewrite the history, rewrite Clayton’s journals would be to reflect him personally in a way that he wants to be remembered or to, um, be seen or to have the history of the church remembered in a certain way.

[2:00:30] Michelle: So I will just, just because if, if historians are listening, I will acknowledge that Clayton did rewrite other sources like the Council of 50 Records and um and also um the um Um, but the Masonic records were rewritten, right? So that, so some people will say no, they just rewrote records. I think that it is, again, not, um, not a valid argument to say, oh, they rewrote records as if there isn’t all of this controversy and it’s as if there aren’t all of these problems. Even if, I mean, I think to me what. Makes me think is oh we need to investigate all rewritten records why were they recopied right? but um even if there are other records that were recopied and there that isn’t a problem that doesn’t mean that these records aren’t problematic because we are pointing out all of the reasons that they are highly problematic and again this mountain of evidence that we have that refutes them. So, so I, I just wanted to point back that maybe there are different reasons that Clayton recopied some records. I don’t know. I haven’t looked into all of those records. I don’t think you can use that to defend these records.

[2:01:34] Kimberly Brown: Yes, also if um. It would be fairly easy to prove that the rewritten rewritten records were reliable if they show us the first draft and the second draft, and they are consistent in details in details,

[2:01:47] Michelle: right? And if the rewritten records align with the documentation on the ground that we see, right, that would be fine as well. So, OK,

[2:01:54] Kimberly Brown: all right. And next, the accuracy of the information provided. I think we’ve shown in multiple entries that the accuracy is questionable.

[2:02:03] Michelle: Mhm.

[2:02:04] Kimberly Brown: So particularly the Kinderhook plates, the entries about Eliza and Emily Partridge.

[2:02:10] Michelle: Yes, and then that about Margaret Moon, the dating problem, yes, uh-huh

[2:02:13] Kimberly Brown: dating problem. And next, whether it aligns with other credible sources. I, you know, if any historians are watching this and they found a backup source for any of these entries, please, please send those in, let us know. But none of the entries that I checked against the church height archives, other journals. And Joe Smith papers had anything to back them up.

[2:02:36] Michelle: And you want, I want to pause one more time, just, just, uh, because you said that about please send us sources. I want to make it very clear. I say that often and I’m not just blowing smoke. I am, and I, and I know that Kim isn’t either. We are honestly looking for the truth. We really, really want the truth, and we keep being told that we’re ridiculous, right? But how hard would it be to send us the sources that refute. These journal entries, right? Like, I think that’s a very sincere request. If there are things that we’re missing, there may be, right? Nobody knows everything. We could very well be missing documents or more things could show up that we haven’t known yet. Please let us know so we can keep adjusting and keep making sure we’re not getting things wrong. But to just say, no, the Clayton journals are valid and you have to treat them as valid because some of the dates line up. That is like, like they, they say that they’re concerned about how many thousands and tens of thousands of people are coming to this perspective. It would be very easy to stop it through just evidence. Just we, we are very evidence-driven. Just show us the evidence of why your case is so strong and you’ll win us over. If you don’t have the evidence to back up the claims you make, then you have to acknowledge that there is a conversation to be had and maybe We have good

[2:03:51] Kimberly Brown: arguments. Yes, exactly. And we should always be willing to obtain more information, more good information. And, you know what, if they release the William Clayton journals completely and we see the first draft and, you know, my conclusions here today are wrong, I’ll take in that information and I’ll change my opinion. Absolutely. Everybody must be willing to take in good information and change their viewpoints based on good information. Next is, um, we must consider the author’s biases and account for them. So William Clayton was a man who had a pregnant plural wife during the months that Joseph Smith was prosecuting and bringing to trial those who were teaching and living polygamy. He would have been highly motivated to rewrite his journals in support of polygamy, just for his own family.

[2:04:38] Michelle: Mhm. Very good point.

[2:04:41] Kimberly Brown: And for all these points, I feel like it is clear, the Clayton journals that we have do not represent an accurate, complete, or trustworthy account of the history of polygamy and cannot be and should not be used to claim proof that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy himself.

[2:04:58] Michelle: Excellent thank you so much for gathering that data and going over it. I love that you pointed out the dating problems and the, you know, the, yeah, I, I, I, I, I think that this is a conversation that needs to continue and I hope the historians will engage with these things and I’m very anxious to see how the um William Clayton Journal’s authors deal with some of these things, right? I hope that they’re not just explained away in the same oversimplified way that some of the things. On the Joseph Smith papers are where it’s kind of like, oh, nothing to see here, you know, I think I, I’m, I’m still, I’m still disappointed that that historian said in the microphone in front of everyone, Joseph Smith was a polygamist, right? In the meeting that I was in. And then, but then in the very next sentence says, yes, there are problems with the journals.

[2:05:50] Kimberly Brown: Yes. And just show us the data. If you, if you want to claim that as a fact, give me one document written during his life.

[2:05:59] Michelle: Yeah, give, give me a child. Give me the documents. Give me the bills. Like Whitehead again said that he kept Joseph Smith’s letter books and his account books and other things. We don’t have any of those documents, and we know that they were keeping careful records. And so that’s another validation for William Clay I mean, I mean James Whitehead’s if I. Said William Cla I met James Whitehead or James Whitehead’s testimony. We have so much evidence and, and not that anyone’s testimony anywhere is perfect, but we should look every, you know, we should look for the documentation for each thing we have, and we need to stop explaining it all away in these motivated ways. I, I’ve been told. You know, I keep asking the question like I guess what I’m going to is a lot of the time the church historians don’t necessarily, we don’t really acknowledge fully the bias that they have that they are very highly motivated to keep telling the church’s narrative, right? This that there’s so much motivation to keep telling the narrative of Joseph Smith polygamy as I’ve said so many times from non-Mormons, from members of the church, from the church historians, but they need to acknowledge their own bias and recognize that they are uh they are. Not free to address the sources as, um, with, with as little bias as we actually have. We are the ones that are going against our best interests to talk about this. So when I ask, and I’ve asked several people, like, like that’s where the faith question comes up, because they are motivated to preserve faith in the church, right? And I’ve asked so many people, why is the idea that Brigham Young started polygamy more destructive to faith than these stories we tell about Joseph Smith with, right? Like, we know Brigham Young was a. and we can read Brigham Young’s discourses and see the horrible things he said. Why are we trying to pretend that doesn’t exist when we have so much evidence for it and then saying all of these things about Joseph Smith where we have no evidence for it. And, and we know how many, I don’t know, hundreds of thousands of people have left the church, you know, in these last decades, in large part over the polygamy narrative. And the best answer I have gotten from many people is, well, we’ve already adjusted to that. We’ve already dealt with the Joseph. Smith polygamy narrative, but kind of this idea, it’s already done its damage. And first of all, no, it hasn’t. No, it the, the damage is ongoing constantly, right? It’s not like every member of the church understands the full narrative of what what we claim that Joseph Smith did with all of these teenage girls and pregnant women and married women and behind Emma’s back, that is not well understood at all. It is still waiting to do much more damage. And I, I, so I strongly disagree with that. And also that’s such a, um. Apologetic approach also that like we’re only going to believe the story that we think will do the most, the least damage,

[2:08:41] Kimberly Brown: right?

[2:08:42] Michelle: We should want the truth and the fact is, in my estimation. The truth does far less damage than the lie, the falsehood that we’ve been taught for so long. Knowing is, I, I, I, I, anyway, it, it really frustrates me that we are, we are dealing with, um, historical narratives that aren’t really just based in evidence. There’s a lot of motivation, a lot of bias going into them, and we’re being accused of that, but it’s actually the opposite.

[2:09:09] Kimberly Brown: Mhm. No, I think you’re absolutely right that it’s a false dichotomy that, you know, if Joseph Smith was not the source of polygamy, then the church today could not be functioning with keys. I hear that all the time. Yeah, that, um, but it’s simply not true. So I, on this slide, I have a few, yeah, so.

[2:09:31] Michelle: Um, and we should know, Kimberly and I, Kim and I are at church every Sunday in the same ward, right?

[2:09:37] Kimberly Brown: So we’re active, we’re faithful and honestly, um, I think that like understanding this about the history increases faith in Jesus Christ. It it increases, um, understanding about his doctrines.

[2:09:52] Michelle: Yeah, Kim, you’re in the primary presidency,

[2:09:54] Kimberly Brown: right? I’m a secretary.

[2:09:56] Michelle: OK, and you want, like, you’re not afraid of your children believing these things because of how it will weaken their faith, I assume, right? Like,

[2:10:05] Kimberly Brown: no, absolutely not. Like I, I, um, I feel like the polygamy as I was taught as a teenager was something that was, um, it was something that It was hard for me. Like, I, in the end, like eventually I had gained a testimony of um many gospel principles and so I was able to be in the church and feel good about it, but I never felt peace about polygamy. I think that if, if the doctrines of the church were simply that um polygamy was a misunderstanding of the past, but we understand through the scriptures. That, um, it was not a command of God. I think it would relieve a lot of girls. It would, it would decrease the struggles with faith of a lot of young people.

[2:10:47] Michelle: I completely agree, and it would decrease a lot of the trials of a lot of our young men who somehow polygamy gets into men’s minds and justifies a lot of things potentially I heard story after story after story of men justifying lust in different ways by, oh well, it’s because I’m supposed to be a polygamist or do you know what I mean? It just gets in there and it just, there are no good fruits. We need to stop teaching it.

[2:11:11] Kimberly Brown: Yes, and once you see the evidence, like truth will always lead us closer to God. Like, um, there is a, so Henry B. Iring’s father was named Henry Iying, and he taught that when Henry B. Iring was going to school at the University of Arizona, Henry, his father told him that all things that are true are part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Mhm. And so learning the truth, understanding the history more can only draw us closer to Christ. But DNC um section 3 verse 1 says the works and designs and purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they be put to naught. And Joseph Smith taught the standard of truth has been erected. No unhallowed hand can stop the word of God from progressing. So even though, um, it is true that Brigham Young, um taught that Joseph Smith started the priesthood ban for black people holding the priesthood, Brigham Young also taught that Joseph Smith was involved with the Adam God theory. And we now know historically that there’s no evidence of that. If you look at the history of polygamy, you see that it is the same. There just isn’t evidence to support that. So I see evidence that God is still working with the church and with the gospel in Wilfred Woodruff. So Wilfred Woodruff was on a mission, um, for the most part of 1843, and he did not begin engaging in polygamy until 1846. His journal has not a word supporting polygamy. But, um, he even in the Temple Lot trial, he stated he had never seen the revelation claim to be DNC 132, but he assumed that it was somewhere in the church archives. So I think some of the mistakes in some of these people, these ancestors were that they were trusting what they were told without checking the source, without checking the scriptures or to verify.

[2:13:15] Michelle: I actually think that’s such an important point because I, I want to drill down on that for a second again, just going back to the previous conversation because so often. We are told this is a conspiracy theory. Do you know how many people would have had to be in on that conspiracy and that’s such elementary thinking and not not critical thought to realize that the vast majority of people who came to believe in polygamy believed it on the accounts of others. In my episode on Whitehead, I talked about how Whitehead. All of the information he had about polygamy was based on later claims, rumors that were going around and things he and even he, being in the office with Joseph Smith every day came to believe that for a time. That’s how powerful these pernicious rumors were. They were very compelling to all of the people who were like, No, this is why Joseph did it. This is why Joseph said it. The rumors were so. Telling that most of most people believe them still today, right? These, these rumors are very compelling, so we shouldn’t be surprised that many of these people came to believe them, but it is not evidence of a huge conspiracy. Most of the people claiming that this was polygamy were not lying. They were saying what they genuinely believed based on what, based on what everybody else told them.

[2:14:27] Kimberly Brown: Yes, exactly, and sometime you’ll have to do an episode on the Fon parable if you haven’t ever talked about that. Yes. Yeah, Joseph Smith wrote a letter to an editor of a of a newspaper in 1842, right at the start of all of these rumors about polygamy, and he talked about how people would believe these false rumors that were being spread about him based on someone, he says a powerful lion was sharing these, it was making a lot of noise and all the other people or all the beasts in the forest believed the tale of the lion. And in the Fon parable, it actually gave me a lot of hope, because at the very end, he says, and one day they will acknowledge Joseph’s the fawn’s innocence and will recognize that the Lord is God. And I thought, If we don’t understand, I’m like in the church, we, we do know many gospel truths and principles, but at least in regard to polygamy, we don’t understand the doctrine. And so it would make sense that when the church knows that Joseph is innocent, then we will recognize that the true doctrine of God.

[2:15:36] Michelle: Oh, I love it. And you know, I can’t help but make the association that Brigham Young is the lion of the Lord, right? In the parable. Brigham is a lion person.

[2:15:46] Kimberly Brown: Yeah. In that parable, like, it’s con it is very, it’s fairly confusing as a parable. When I first read it, I just went cross-eyed and I was like, this makes no sense to me. But another time I read it and it made perfect sense that the large lion could have only been Brigham Young. And it wasn’t that all of these other church leaders were nefarious. I read 2000 pages of Brigham Young’s journal, and I did not get from him that he was nefarious, but he did add some traditions into the church that did not serve us well. Um, and then everybody, so, um, Brigham Young believed the tales told by John C. Bennett, and then everybody else believed what he taught. Um, in this slide, in this slide, I talk about the vision which Wilfred Woodruff had, which was evidence to me that God was still working with the apostles, still working with the leaders of the church, even with all of these early misunderstandings and doctrine. Wilfred Woodruff’s vision, he says, I saw a vision and revelation, the temple in the hands of the wicked. I saw our city, Salt Lake in the hands of the wicked. I saw every temple in these valleys in the hands of the wicked. I saw great destruction among the people. Sometime after this, and a little bit after this, Wilfred Woodruff published the manifesto. This to me is evidence that God continued work with priesthood holders in the church, despite doctrinal troubles or misunderstandings. In Jacob chapter 2, verse 27, it states that the land will be cursed for the sakes of people who live commit polygamy against the commandments of God. And this, the vision combined with Jacob 22:27. Shows that um God was actively working with the church. So, um, I have a testimony from my own life where I saw a, a profound miracle through priesthood blessings. So even after doing this deep dive into the history and seeing all of the complications, um, I, I knew that somehow God is still working with his church. Um, two parables explain how this was allowed to happen in the church. Um, the parable of the wheat and the tears. Had God removed every person who had been, um, living polygamy against the teachings of Joseph Smith at the time of the martyrdom, the church would have been crippled in its infancy. Enough apostles, um, would have needed to be removed that we would have crumbled. The church needed to grow, and Brigham Young, even though he had, he, he made some mistakes, he was also a very strong leader who was able to unite a large group of group of saints together. He preserved most of the records and he was able to help the church grow until we were strong enough. For Wilfred Woodruff to get the vision to put polygamy aside.

[2:18:44] Michelle: Yes, and you know what? Polygamy might have been part of his motivation as well, right? To come out to to establish a new, like, Brigham is very problematic, but the Lord works through whatever means there are, right? And so just because Brigham Young is so problematic doesn’t mean that the Lord isn’t still capable of doing God’s work.

[2:19:05] Kimberly Brown: Yes, exactly. And Brigham Young, he later stated he got a vision. Uh, he got a a revelation while he was on his mission in England, um, about polygamy. He claimed he didn’t do anything with it until he heard of it later from Joseph Smith. Um, but, um, I think the evidence points to the fact that, um, polygamy did begin to be taught and preached even against Joseph Smith’s teachings, but then later on it was more convenient to place it upon Joseph Smith because yeah,

[2:19:37] Michelle: he needed Joseph’s authority. He didn’t have enough authority on his own to make the claim. Yeah,

[2:19:43] Kimberly Brown: sure, yes, and it’s not that he was nefarious, it’s that he truly believed a revelation came from God. That could not have based on DNC

[2:19:54] Michelle: 43, yeah, the, the deception, right? Deception is we’re all subject to deception. We need to be so careful and another evidence to me of um God still working through the church and the leaders is when um Brigham Young had his dream and his revelation of Joseph Smith coming to him and he was so desperate to understand adoption and different things. Joseph teach me. And what Joseph told Brigham Young is tell the people to get the spirit. If they have the spirit, it will not lead them astray. That is, that is amazing to me. If Joseph, like Brigham Young, I, I think, you know, it looks to me like Brigham Young was telling the truth about that. I don’t see a reason to doubt it because Joseph’s answer to Brigham was the people need the spirit. That’s what they need to be able to discern truth from error.

[2:20:38] Kimberly Brown: Yes, exactly. Jesus Christ taught that the Holy Ghost is the Holy Spirit of truth, and we have in the Book of Mormon it says, Cursed is he who places his trust in men unless their words are witnessed by the Holy Ghost. Yes, that is truly the anchor because the Holy Ghost is a member of the Godhead that um testifies the truth. Um, but I also thought about sharing, you know, where I saw, um, the priest truly blessing my life. So, um, I, um, when I was 16 years old, I worked alone at a laundromat, and a man came in, I don’t remember this, but, um, a man came in and he robbed me. He shot me twice, um, once through my shoulder down my mid back. And the 2nd bullet actually hit directly over my spine. Um, right at C2. So the, the um scar is directly over the vertebrae. But, so I was working alone and I had a random thought pop in my mind. I thought, if I were robbed, I, I’d give him the money, and I actually remember physically shaking my head thinking, huh, where did that thought come from? But I woke up in the hospital 3 days later. So a man had come into the laundromat and had, um, shot me twice. And then, um, sometime later, maybe 5 or 10 minutes later, a woman came into the laundromat and I had set her, um, card and tanning goggles out. There was a tanning bed in the back of the laundromat. And, um, she signed the card and she started to walk back into to where the tanning bed was. But then she said she walked past the wall I was hidden behind and she heard a pin drop. And so she decided, she decided to go and say hi to me. This was a regular tanner who didn’t need to say hi to me before going back, but she um found me hidden at the base of some clothes behind an ironing board. And um she called 911 and ran next door and said, a girl has been shot, I need help. And there was a man there, he wrote me a letter. He said that morning, he had a prompting to make sure he had his consecrated oil with him. And so, um, when the lady came in frantic saying, a girl’s been shot, I need help, he jumped up first and somebody said, don’t go, don’t go there, the shooter might still be there. Um, but he decided to run over. There was another, so he went into the laundromat and he saw me in so much blood and thought no one can be alive that has lost that much blood. But then I guess I shuddered and he, um, so he knew I was alive. He saw somebody walking across the parking lot and ran outside and said, Are you a priesthood holder? And the two men were able to give me a blessing exactly when I needed it. And The Charles Clark, who wrote me the letter, he said that there was a very dark feeling in the laundromat when he went in, but then after the priesthood blessing, that feeling left and it was replaced with light. Um, after this, the paramedics came in record time, um, and the paramedic got in trouble because he knew a backup helicopter was coming from Salt Lake. So he didn’t send me to small, the small town hospital in Grantsville or in Twila, Utah. Instead, he waited for the helicopter from the University of Utah. At this time, they did not know I was shot in the head. They were trying to stabilize my shoulder wound. My hair was just as long back then as it is today, so the wound was fully hidden. And the bullet, when it hit my spine, skewed right and it hit my cheekbone internally. So I would have certainly been bleeding, but there’s just so much blood.

[2:24:31] Michelle: You

[2:24:32] Kimberly Brown: couldn’t tell.

[2:24:32] Michelle: Yeah. Yes.

[2:24:34] Kimberly Brown: So, um, he got in trouble, but he sent me to the hospital with some of the best neurosurgeons on this side of the Rocky Mountains. Um, my family was called down to the hospital and after about an hour and a half, the doctor came out and he said, I’m really sorry. We found another bullet. If she lives, she likely will be bed bound, um, and to expect the worst. Um, I woke up 3 days later, um, A few other things happened with this. After the man shot me, he went to a gas station a couple of hours west on I-5 on I-80. And the lady, um, she also barely survived. She said a man came into the, um, gas station and said he was meeting someone. So he and he came in and out about 3 times. And the last time he came in, she said he told her to get down on her knees and put her shirt over her head, so he wouldn’t see her eyes. But then she said he didn’t hesitate, he just shot me in the back. And she said, um, after he shot me, I heard a voice tell me not to move or he would shoot me again, and Kim, I am not crazy, but that was my dad’s voice, and my dad died 5 years ago. And so she listened to her dad and played dead. And she was able to identify this man’s car to the police. And fortunately, they were able to stop him and um he um shot at the cops a few times before killing himself. But, um, so. After, um. The neurosurgery after I was in at the University of Utah, I was at the hospital for a month. Um, the doctors told me, um, that I was doing things that I should not be able to do. The bullet shot me, like I mentioned, directly over my spine, um, and skewed right to hit my cheekbone. I last, about 3 weeks ago, I took a dry needling course for physical therapy. I’m a physical therapist now. I work part time and do home stuff part time. But the small triangle of my neck, there’s a small triangle in the neck that I’m not allowed to even put a needle into because of sensitive neurovascular structures, and that is where the bullet hit me. And I don’t know if my arteries are arranged differently. I don’t know if my head was just turned just so that it was OK. But based on the location of where I was hit, I should not have survived. Um, based on being alone when this happened, I should have been found in the morning. And, um, the very last person to come in, like she was the only person who could have found me there. But um. I’m very humbled by this, that, um, so after I was in the hospital for a month, I tapped my dad on the arm. I had a tracheostomy and I couldn’t talk without holding my hand over it. But I said, I said, um, I remembered something and my blessing, my patriarchal blessing, which I got 2 years before this happened. Um, I won’t share details, but had I died on this day when I was all alone in that laundromat, my blessing would have been specifically proven false. And um God knew where I was and that I needed help, and he sent help exactly where I needed it. There were 3 different people that I know of that were given blessings right when I needed it, and So I saw from this that the blessing, my patriarchal blessing was absolutely inspired and it has been since then prophetic for my life. And the blessing I received um right after the shooting was exactly what I needed. So that’s my story of even with this history being so crazy, I knew that somehow God was working with the church today. Um, the other parable that I, um, that taught me in this understanding the history is Jacob 5, where there are, um, God sends servants to his vineyard to repeatedly prune and nourish and tend his vineyard to take out rotten and wild fruit. And he doesn’t cease, he sends them again and again. So I see this with how God works with his church, that he continues to send them. And servant truth

[2:29:07] Michelle: truth

[2:29:07] Kimberly Brown: to us. Exactly. So that is my testimony.

[2:29:13] Michelle: Oh my goodness, Kim, I haven’t heard your story. I mean, I knew your history. I’ve heard you talk about it, but I had never heard you give all of the details. I’m like, is that how you lost your hearing as well? I know you have cochlear implants.

[2:29:27] Kimberly Brown: Yes, and that’s, um, that took away the hearing in my right ear, and it was kind of a Um, and serendipitous or ironic thing that so 18 years after the shooting, I ended up, I was back at the same hospital where I recovered for a month from the first shooting, and the hospital was full. And so when I recovered from the cochlear implant, I actually ended up on the trauma floor of the same hospital exactly where I was for the original injury, and my cochlear implant got rid of the residual deficit that I have from that injury. Like, I, I can hear on the right now and that that was the only significant effect from the shooting.

[2:30:09] Michelle: OK, thank you so much for sharing your story, your testimony, as well as all of your research, and I just, I want people um To recognize the sincerity in the story that Kim just shared, and the testimony that Kim just shared, and um and I have my own experiences of um Finding God in this gospel and in this church and how, um, sincere both of us are, and I know so many thousands of others are in saying, we love the church. We find truth and power in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as housed in this church. And, um, the, um, association with the church that we so highly prize and value and you know, like both of us, it’s I’ve talked about it a lot. It’s hard to be a mom in in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints raising our children in the church, right? It requires a lot of us. And we, um, you know, it’s just a lot of work, a lot of effort often, but it’s worth it. And both of us see it that way. Both of us do that work that is required because of the incredible benefits to us, to our children, to our families, and the opportunities it gives us and gives our children. And I, and I just hope that people can hear this in, um, the spirit that I feel of everything that Kim has shared. To and I know that people have miracles in their lives, right? Not only in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but Kim’s story is another testimony that those miracles also exist in our church and in in and among our people and with The power of priesthood blessings and consecrated oil and that God is watching over Kim’s path in this church in such profound ways. And I want to again make a plea to the people who are trying to protect a narrative. That both Kim and I, with how much we value and love the church, are willing to take the risk to say we believe these things based on evidence and it’s renewed, I think, for I’m speaking on behalf of both of us, I think you would agree and on so many others, it has renewed and invigorated our faith in the. Brilliance of God, the goodness of God, the amazing things that God has given us. I, when I read the Book of Mormon with these new eyes and see, it just opens up new doors. It opens up deeper connection to God, more experiences with God, with the divine. And, and I, and I want to invite people to consider the fact that this is not a threat. To the church. This is not a threat to anybody’s church membership. Neither of us are asking people to leave the church. We’re doing exactly the opposite. And I want to plead with people to please recognize that and stop implying and arguing and fighting to try to get people like him and me out of the church with our families, with, like, The insanity of that. Please hear what we’re saying and believe us and stop spreading the lies about me that are going everywhere. Recently, um, oh, I haven’t been given permission to share details. I will just say postcards have now been created that are being sent to home addresses that people’s families are seeing postcards about me that have my picture on them and say some horrible thing like. Did you know Michelle Stone says that the temple is satanic, or did you know Michelle Stone is destroying the church and then it’ll have some random screenshot and it says some awful things on the back, telling the leaders what they need to do. I, I just am appalled by this, and I want to say, Kim, how much I admire you and John and your faith and your family and the things that you’re doing and your dedication to truth. It And to the gospel and to your beliefs, and, and how protective I feel of you that, um, that anybody would want to threaten that with you and your husband and your beautiful family. I am highly, um, upset by that. And I just want to plead with everybody on all sides to please start out like, recognize the sincerity that people like Kim and me are bringing to this conversation. We’re both really smart women. We are capable of doing analysis. We are capable of not just we are capable of dealing with cognitive dissonance, right? We’ve both done it often. We are not just wanting to find a narrative to make ourselves feel better, and we also are not wolves and sheep’s clothing trying to destroy the church. And, and I think I speak for both of us on that. So yes. Kim, I cannot thank you enough for coming, sharing all of this research you’ve done, sharing. your story and, and I know that you are so involved in these communities and so quick to share resources and you do so much research. I just want to sincerely, I just want to tell you how much I love you and how much I appreciate you, and I thank you for everything that you do and for coming and sharing all of this with us today.

[2:35:22] Kimberly Brown: Thank you so much, Michelle, and I love and appreciate you also. I think the gospel, it truly is a search for truth. And after doing all this study, I Read the doctrine and covenants and saw how much God wanted his church on the earth. He gave us His commandments all over again in the restoration so that we’d have those commandments, and it’s just really solidified for me that even if there are some things that are needing to be improved, the gospel itself is good, the gospel itself is true, and God is still working with his church just like he did with the vineyard and Jacob 5.

[2:35:59] Michelle: Yes, I agree. And I always say for me and for so many others, the good in the church vastly outweighs the bad. I know, yes, we both acknowledge there are challenges, there are difficulties. It’s a struggle sometimes it’s not always comfortable, but my goodness, the good outweighs the bad immensely. So thank you so much, Michelle, for having me. Thank you again and thank you everyone for joining in, and we will see you next time. Another huge thank you to Kim for all of the time that she has spent digging into this topic and the extra time she spent preparing for this presentation and for sharing so much of herself in the beautiful things that she has to tell us and the beautiful testimony that she shares. I really appreciate her. Kim did have an insight after we recorded this that I hope she won’t mind if I share, but how she talked about her sort of Wish that Margaret had been able to speak up and prevent this. Kim later said that she had the realization that that’s why she’s here, that it’s OK that Margaret wasn’t able to speak up because Kim is here now and she can speak up. And that’s still, even saying it again gives me chills all over again. I think that is a message that all of us can take to heart, that whatever happened in the past, it’s all, it’s OK. It’s all part of the plan, and we’re here now doing our part. So thank you again. I will see you next time.